alt Hacker NewsThey literally asked for it. Two days ago Amodei wrote an essay urging the government to regulate them. He explicitly cited Mythos, as proof that frontier AI has acquired autonomous hacking capabilities that threaten critical infrastructure and national security.
"Mythos Preview scrambled the global cybersecurity landscape. But its broader significance is that it proves beyond doubt that AI models are now tools of global and national strategic consequence."
"The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions"
A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public.
Edit. From David Sacks:
— A highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails. The Admin asked Dario to fix the jailbreak or de-deploy the model. Dario refused.
— In their blog post, Anthropic defended its decision by saying the jailbreak isn’t serious. That is not what the trusted partner and the USG believe; nor is that kind of minimizing language consistent with Anthropic’s brand as the AI safety company. It’s difficult to fathom how they could claim a jailbreak allowing operability of a cyber weapon could be defined as not “serious".Replies
Cynically: this is an attempt to quash open source or discount model competition through regulatory capture.
> A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public.
Pressure test this assumption before getting behind this position.
“This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions.”
> They literally asked for it.
Yes, and rape victims are "asking for it" by wearing short skirts. I thought we stopped with this nonsense a couple decades ago?
There's a huge difference between "we want regulation", and the government swinging it's dick at random.
If the government had said, a week ago, don't release Fable? That wouldn't have gotten nearly this reaction. And the government has known that these capabilties exist since they were announced TWO MONTHS AGO.
David Sacks could not be further from a reliable or impartial narrator on this topic.
And before someone calls this an ad hominem, it isn’t; I am not saying he is bad or morally wrong or anything else (you are free to think that or not, as am I).
But Sacks has skin in the game. And that makes him both unreliable and partial.