all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 40 points 5 months ago

"Do you have any idea how much money somebody could steal with this level of market manipulation? The Iran war isn't gonna end every couple of days forever! We need to corner the technology now!"

  • source
  • [–] 76 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    5 bucks says Anthropic asked them do to this

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    Maybe having all of your marketing materials talk about how it’s too strong to contain wasn’t such a good idea…

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Awfully soon after the Meta AI exploit. I wonder if this is an admission that anthropic has access to government systems that Trump doesn't want people to get into.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    oh no my version of Claude won't hallucinate as quickly as the Americans version....

    seriously though Antrhopic probably asked for this.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    This is why Canada and the EU want data sovereignty. I want all LLMs to piss off but no one country should have their fat little anticompetitive finger on the scale.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] [S] 9 points 5 months ago

    This is a hilarious self own for the US. It basically shows the world how dangerous it is to rely on American tech since it can just be yank from under you. Imagine if you're making a US model as an integral part of your business and wake up to this. All this will do is to drive the rest of the world to use Chinese tech that's not subject to this kind of fuckery. And at least when you're using open models, even if the company shuts them down or changes terms in the way you don't like, you always have the option to self host. If you're relying on a proprietary model then you're shit out of luck.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    The day same day Elon is announced a trillionare, a competitor gets nerfed. 🤔

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Policy as fight promotion, everybody.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/AINews@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.

    oof

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 2 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I mean if it hurts an AI company that’s good in my book.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago*

    I don't like any of the AI companies, but the US government taking targeted actions against companies due to policy disagreements (in this case due to AI weaponization) is not a good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    Why? Are there Epstein files in there?

  • source