This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Statement on the US government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5.
A few immediate thoughts:
For one strain of doomer, this is a good thing: the USG showing willingness to directly intervene and cut down the addressable market for capability-pushing models reduces economic incentives to push the frontier at all costs and slows down the race dynamic. Correspondingly, it's going to be a nightmare for the markets: the AI boom is driven by the idea that frontier models are going to be replacing a significant chunk of global labor, and obviously now this is significantly less likely now that frontier models are going to be stuck in Uncle Sam's basement.
For another strain of doomer, this is a horrible thing: really this was fairly clear even with the DOD conflict, but now control of AI is now very firmly a direct White House concern - the fate of the planet and/or the universe is in the end going to be decided by DC bureaucrats and not SF tech nerds.
Companies, especially non-US companies, are going to be rushing to the doors to move their AI workflows off closed-source and onto self-hosted models, another blow for the AI market thesis - the business continuity risks of Anthropic's demonstrated willingness to silently cripple models and USG's demonstrated willingness to now arbitrarily cut off access are simply going to be too much.
In the long term, maybe, but in the short term, I don't know that this is bad for Anthropic. Mythos first entered the conversation with the press release about all the vulnerabilities it found and how they're too scared to release the model to the public. This prompted more criticism than these companies normally receive, with several commentators pointing out how the claims were exaggerated and that they were just repeats of similar claims about products that were released and didn't end up being dangerous at all. So now they have the US government saying that this product is too dangerous for the public. Never mind that this is the same government that unsuccessfully tried to tag Anthropic as security risk because they didn't like purported limitations on the use of their software, but never mind that. Also, these names are a little too on the nose. Mythos suggests a product that's meant to inspire but doesn't actually exist. Fable suggests something mean to impart a moral lesson but is likewise nonexistent. The only similarly named product I can think of is the Mitsubishi Mirage, which feels like a similar thought exercise in how much you can cut from a vehicle and still be permitted to import it into the US.
Sure. This administration is great at making huge announcements which then fall apart in the court system because it turns out that not everything Trump feels he should have the authority to do is something he can actually do. Getting banned by the USG and then getting the ban reversed in court would definitely add to the hype.
More options
Context Copy link
I haven’t been able to figure out what authority the feds are using here, but if it’s ITAR it gets rough quick.
I have no idea either but it probably doesn't matter since I doubt Anthropic will litigate it. Then again, it suspiciously comes the day after the SpaceX IPO, and with Anthropic gunning for an IPO of their own, it seriously hurts their business prospects if the US government is throttling what products they can release. The industry has already spent a ton of money on a technology that hasn't proven any ability to make money as it is, and it doesn't bode well for the industry if they spend ungodly sums only for their products to be deemed a security risk and effectively unmarketable. On the third hand, maybe this is just payback for the whole DoD thing.
More options
Context Copy link
It's still a real hassle getting something as simple as a scope for a hunting rifle from the US to Canada -- which IIRC is ITAR (the hassle is on the US side, and there were some big fines for exporters before people started paying attention), and has been the case for a number of years.
Certainly an actual AGI would be a bigger threat to US national security than a nice cheap scope from SFRC, so I guess it makes sense?
This is more a problem with US exporters not bothering to keep up to date on ITAR reforms (there have been a few that reclassified most of the stuff into a much laxer category) than anything else, though.
Perhaps something an AI could solve for them, but their market is large enough that they don't have to care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the full info is out yet. Axios has one news article with a bit more (found via Zvi), but no specific law is named.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link