AI Regulation Should Be Rational, Not Retaliatory(www.eff.org)
17 pointsby hn_acker8 hours ago1 comment
  • g42gregory6 hours ago
    Does someone think Mythos/Fable “regulations” are retaliatory?

    For the last several years, Anthropic was telling to anyone who will listen: “Government must regulate our models”. Finally, Government heard them.

    Now, they telling their customers, “Oh, it’s the Government’s fault”.

    No, you’ve been telling everyone: our models are “too powerful”, “too dangerous”. Now what?

    • willmarch5 hours ago
      Of course it was retaliatory.
      • g42gregory4 hours ago
        I think you're right. I just wish they weren't telling everyone how "dangerous" these models are. I think both Anthropic and WH are at fault. I just need my Fable 5 back. Perhaps, Anthropic could suddenly discover that Fable 5 "is not as dangerous as they initially thought"? We had to go through this charade for GPT-2 already.
        • willmarch4 hours ago
          If they didn't warn about the new capabilities of these models (by asking for fair standards/regulations) they could open themselves up to potential liabilities and heavy criticism from the public about not doing enough to prepare the world for the new technology.

          They're in a sort of damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. Their motivations can be endlessly speculated about, but they are being pulled in many different directions by many powerful groups that want wildly different things from the new tech (along with the obvious financial motivations as well).