I can't wait till employees start helping with the distillation process.
The Cantillon Effect applied to machine intelligence..
I understand why Anthropic might not want to fight this particular one in court, because they're trying to convince the administration to let them move forward.<p>But would another company who is not on the trusted partner list and has less to lose taking on the admin have standing to sue here? On the basis of the export control being illegal and this putting their business at a disadvantage vs. competitors with access
>> More than 100 companies and institutions will now have access to Mythos 5, including many Fortune 500 companies, a source familiar with the new directive said, declining to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.<p>Who are those 100 companies? Clearly they can't compete on merit and have rubbed some hands to be picked as winners...at least for now.
How does my small company become a "trusted partner"?
I’m not sure what the US government is trying to do. At first it seems like they are just trying to stifle some company that said no. Now they are just doing free publicity. It’s like never before have I wanted to try something out as much as this.<p>They’re in effect saying “nothing else is as powerful as what Anthropic put out”. Even though that might not really be the case it’s what it sounds like.
Don't start to rely on it .<p>The US might remove access next month in a fit of pique.<p>The Chinese models look increasingly more reliable and safer.
This is a pithy internet comment, but terrible advice.<p>Between the Chinese government and Anthropic, I know which one I'd rather send tokens to. For all of the problems of the US, for-profit corporations, data harvesting, etc. the CCP (and, perhaps more troublesome, its allies) is far less likely to align with your interests.
I don't buy that anymore. The day America threatened to invade Canada and Denmark was the day America showed they cannot be trusted any more.<p>It's not like China can be trusted either, but China isn't planning any direct invasions to the west. Taiwan, perhaps, but they're playing a long-term tactical game rather than a "invade the country we don't like this week" game. They might get some info on you, but the data brokers in the west will sell a lot more details about you, pre-categorized and all.<p>If you're afraid of industrial espionage, Chinese companies may be a risk, but in that case you shouldn't be uploading your secrets to an AI company in the first place.
Given recent history, I'd be more likely to be killed by American actions than Chinese ones.
What if the model is hosted on a 3rd party site ?
Being open weight, the Chinese models can be served the same way as Anthropic's: via AWS or GCP. Or whomever really, or on prem.
China won't arrest you for wrongthink where you live now
You don't have to send your tokens to the CCP to use the Chinese models, that is the beauty of it. You can find GLM, Minimax, Deepseek, Kimi, etc hosted in China, Europe, the US, and probably elsewhere depending on what your geographic preferences for token transport are.
> I know which one I'd rather send tokens to.<p>Do you have access to Mythos? If not the choice has already been made for you.
You don’t have to run the chinese models in chinese data centers as many of them are open weights. Some could say that trumps both.
Safer?
This appears to be only for Mythos 5 access, NOT Fable 5.
I'm looking forward to better open source models. Now I just need to afford the compute to run these models.
I wonder if Anthropic and ChatGPT will continue to scream at the top of their lungs how dangerous their services are and how they will break the security of everything everywhere?<p>Or may they'll decide to be a little more quiet and less end-of-the-world-is-nigh-if-you-use-our-services?
It is interesting that there is no public announcement from the US government or Anthropic on this topic. That means there is no form to apply to be a trusted partner.<p>Does it mean US is allowing accessing to governments' exclusive list?
This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners'
Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though.
Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money"
Crypto companies were built for anonymous transfers of wealth. It's why they are perfect for money laundering and corruption. Venture backed companies are more difficult, since you would need a paper trail (equity, incorporation documents, beneficial owners, etc.)<p>It's not impossible, of course. It's not even terribly difficult, but it does require a different level of record.<p>(No, I'm not saying that the goons running the United States give a shit or won't do it anyway.)
Will startups be even a thing now that the VCs obviously just need to funnel all their money to 2 or so companies ad-infinitum for guaranteed returns.
Other than maybe some in-the-moment cybersec wrappers, is this really true? Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release? It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release, but in real life it’s not conferring some massive advantage that any real startup would need to compete. Almost everyone would be best just to ignore it and keep building.<p>(Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)
> <i>Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release?</i><p>- It's not "incrementally better". It's a complete game changer. Opus 4.8 on max thinking does X amount of mistakes in my commercial work. Fable 5 did 5% of X. Counted. I barely had anything to contribute in the work sessions, for a full week I could count on my two hands the total amount of times I actually caught Fable 5 -- and one part of those were not true mistakes, more like divergence from policy in our `CLAUDE.md` files.<p>- It's not "security focused". It's simply better in every way _plus_ it's also security-conscious.<p>- It legitimately accelerated my work. I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Fable 5 was an objective and measurable improvement over Opus 4.8. Returning to it after Fable 5 was removed was extremely discouraging and frustrating, and still is to some extent.<p>> <i>It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release</i><p>Maybe, but not as much fun as tearing down a straw man apparently. :)<p>> <i>(Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)</i><p>It's ridiculous for multiple other reasons but ridiculous nonetheless.
That kind of gets to the absurdity of it. Either it’s a wildly powerful next generation model with incredible capabilities and thus <i>needs</i> to be limited… or it’s another progressive enhancement like we’ve seen already and limiting access to it makes no sense.
I don't think that follows.<p>Say you had a perfectly smooth progressive chain from rocks to spears to guns to nuclear weapons. When it comes to government restrictions, you still have to choose to draw lines somewhere, right?
The enemy is both all-powerful and pathetic, at the same time, all the time.
Yes, i do. I have 10xd my productivity since last year and im not smarter. And yes my code is high quality
[flagged]
China will just buy a "trusted partner" one way or another.<p>It's like the epidemic of scam nvidia cards being resold without gpu or memory - where do you think those are going?
I wonder if the Founding Fathers knew about AI, they would include it in the 2nd?<p>The spirit is to provide effective tools for the people to resist federal military tyranny, and Mythos seems like it would be a good tool to defend against that, for so many reasons.
I'm not sure that analogy works: pretty much everyone agrees that there are some types of weapons civilians shouldn't be able to have, even though they might be very effective for resisting military tyranny.
Could you explain this like I'm 35?
[dead]
And we get the news the same time OpenAI releases 5.6. What a coincidence?
I think they kind of had to since they allowed OpenAI to do a 5.6 "preview to trusted parties" today. The other driver is that the DoD/NSA wanted to get access to Mythos again. I figure OAI will now do several weeks of 'preview' like Anthropic did with Mythos. When OAI wants to release 5.6 wider to actually start making money with it, I expect Fable will get approved the same day.<p>Back when the administration hit Mythos/Fable with the surprise ban, I figured this would be the endgame. They'd keep Anthropic tied up until a competitor had a roughly comparable model ready, then gate them the same.
[dead]
This reminds me of the following quote<p>"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed." ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model"<p>I assume "trusted partners" means, "companies that have bribed Trump an appropriate amount". A few million for the inauguration, a few million for the ballroom, a few million on a movie about Melania, the don wants a taste.
Imposing a licensing system on models for limiting domestic use should require an act of congress but I mean obviously we're well past that red line.
Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Even firearms, despite a constitutional amendment! Why not models? (Note I am not arguing it's a good idea; I'm making a narrow argument that there is precedent.)<p>EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
> Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives.<p>Every one of those is by a regulatory agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress to do such regulation.
right, and one minute to the next a gun you bought could be a crime to own and land you in jail LOL.<p>congress has abdicated its role entirely.
until it isn't, i.e. certain rulings over the last couple years...
The ATF was created by an act of congress. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968</a>
> I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.<p>Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s.<p>If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them?
All of the agencies responsible for those regulations were created by and get their funding from Congress. Currently, they're asleep at the wheel. Or a better idiom might be "cowering in the corner".
Fairly certain all those have "acts of congress" attached to them. I mean, it used to take a constitutional amendment to make something illegal but now we have tons of agencies responsible for regulating all the things.<p>Plus, they're relying on the "math is a weapon" law to ban "export" of the models.
Congress passed the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC 2778) in the Ford administration and it has been applied to software since at least the Clinton administration.
It has never taken a constitutional amendment to make something illegal.
"Malboro cigarettes may once again be sold, but Newport remains banned for everyone except large purchasers that have paid the appropriate bri... fees."
None of those things are knowledge. I think theres something specific around limiting access to knowledge and capabilities that makes this feel insidious.
Information is covered by ITAR, so that's not new. You can illegally export information about an ITAR covered item by just allowing a foreign national the potential to see an item. They don't even have to prove the foreign national actually did see it.<p><a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-120" rel="nofollow">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M...</a>
I wonder what kind of emergency will happen when real elections get around
And even if a court places an injunction on the ban, it's possible Anthropic will still choose to keep it unavailable.
Overturning the Chevron doctrine is good because it stops lawful people from doing things we don't like. <i>We</i> aren't bound by laws, so we can do whatever we want.<p>-- GOP probably
They did. Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. § 4511 );Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4812 are just two of them.
Do you remember the export controls on Covid vaccine material during the height of coronavirus? I do
Is there any scenario where it's not catastrophic for for the frontier labs?<p>They just got their market cut to a fraction. Investing in new tech is now very risky because even if things work out you might not be able to sell anything.<p>There were already serious doubts about ROI for the frontier labs. If they can only sell to 100 or so entities it's over business wise.<p>What's the endgame here?
Weren't they already doing that?
Open source should create a new license where it specifically doesn't allow release to these "trusted partners".
Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now?
I've been laughing when people tell me that for my entire adult life. It remains a pretty funny bit of dark humor, though.
The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime.<p>The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
But it was applied using principles of the rule of law with clear regulatory frameworks. This is not that
I’ve dealt with these regulations across several administrations. Nothing about this is novel, it is just receiving more attention than usual. Anyone could have started caring about this decades ago. You are making an argument from unfamiliarity with the regulations as practiced.<p>If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.
Jumping in to reflexively defend the admin again, I see.<p>Is there any policy from this admin you don't support?
Also known as, the <i>tu quoque</i> fallacy. Just because politicians in both parties have been doing this for decades doesn't mean that <i>this</i> administration is not especially hypocritical for doing it after whinging so much about free speech and free markets.
The only correct reply.
If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.
Which has been obvious trend the last few decades and is now being done openly and shamelessly like a tinpot dicator. Largely through a new populist protectionism ideology that is popular on social media. Which makes it much more public and well documented.<p>Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips act which funneled money and tax breaks to huge weathy companies, or Boeing, or the car industry, etc.<p>Anthropic and OpenAI went hard in the paint pushing for AI safety and it backfired into hurting their companies rather than protecting their interests.
Well, there are the political ideals expressed or embraced by the populace, and then there are politicians. AFAICT political parties at the national level and state level in the US is pure theater.
the question isn’t about size, it’s about who the government works for. Small government can promote private interests by not entering certain societal spaces, leaving them for profit making — education, healthcare, housing etc. But large government can also promote private interests, by directing tax dollars to corporations (and still not entering certain societal spaces).<p>It’s not about size, it’s about where it chooses to operate
Now?
Free for me, not for thee
They haven’t claimed to be the free market party since Obama was in office. Trump very much ran an anti free market campaign the first time.
Yes they have.
Not really. They’re all lousy pro tariffs, anti immigration, pro tech regulations, and so on. Paul Ryan is gone.
Having an a collective economy governed by the “free market” is like having a pile of stones governed by gravity. There exists a primary directive force, but if you want to construct a cathedral or a bomb shelter, you need to impose some constraints, lest you revert to the angle of repose.
This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want.
In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic that tells you when markets fail (externalities, information asymmetry), or empirically by looking at what was basically the most perfect A/B test we had on society over the 20th century. Although it was a comparison between mixed economies and fully centralised ones, there is no reason to expect the optimum mix of centralisation/distribution to be closer to the worst-performing one (the fully centralised one).
You <i>can't</i> prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.<p>This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not <i>really</i> a free market"<p>Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what <i>actually</i> happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.
<i>at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"</i><p>I mean, it's not. In a free market you'd have a choice of insurance providers rather than having to take whatever plan your employer offers, and you'd have some idea of what the hospital is going to charge you beforehand rather than receiving random bills for weeks.
Just to be clear, my definition of free-market is just that there is no centralised authority that can use force to set prices/quantities/quality/type of services offered.
Of course, the fact that the employer has to offer health insurance in some cases is part of it not being a free market.
But there are more fundamental things that make the US healthcare very far from being a free market. The first one is that the supply of doctors is capped in quantity, not just in quality.
> You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.<p>You can prove the logic part starting from the assumptions. It's also falsifiable. I just mentioned it was literally the most controlled test on human society you could make. We tested by splitting societies at the level of the entire planet, states and cities.<p>US healthcare is mostly not a free market; by free market, at minimum, I mean that the quantities and prices (ideally even the quality) are not set. The US healthcare system has a fixed number of practitioners who can get a license every year. This is as far as a market can be from being free (together with the case of having price controls). In fact, free market theory predicts that when you restrict quantity, you get higher prices for the same quality.
It literally predicts the US situation.<p>It's funny you mention Marx, given I regard most of his claims as either unfalsifiable or easily proven false.
> A/B test we had on society over the 20th century.<p>Well, by your own logic, there's a new a/b test running right now. Its results aren't exactly going your way.
Yes. But that was the “big government democrat” argument that republicans said was evil and un American.
If you laugh you’re a communist and against Christianity and part of a satanic cabal.
That's always been a relative, rather than absolute statement.<p>Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong.<p>(FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, government oversight)
I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.<p>The current admin flies by the seat of their pants and at least creates the perception of political decision making.
> I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.<p>Is that a joke? We're back in a spat with Iran because Obama refused to engage with Congress, as required by our constitution, to enter the USA in any binding deal.<p>Any AI actions from the next admin is going to be executive yolos.
Obamacare, but for AI, where every American has to now pay a penalty to not use AI or something like that?<p>That was the last major thing the Democrats did, and healthcare has gotten substantially worse...but at least it's well regulated now.
> the perception of political decision making<p>The what? More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline and those wishing to curry or keep his favor" - quite an expansive definition of "political decision making".
> More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline..."<p>The previous administration was totally not exactly what's described here...
It wasn’t. Biden largely didn’t do much. The trump administration does illegal things that get struck down in courts on a daily basis. We’re all very desensitized to it.<p>But yes, Biden was old and cognitively not well. But his “whims” didn’t exist much, and they were always fairly reasonable. Trump is the most unreasonable president, most likely in US history. I would even categorize Andrew Jackson as more restrained.
Don't forget the blatant grift and corruption.
We don’t have to guess. Democrats had a pragmatic policy under Biden — which was rescinded by Trump when he took office.<p><a href="https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence/" rel="nofollow">https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statement...</a>
> Democrats had a pragmatic policy under Biden<p>How well does it stand up to Mythos?
Marc Andreesen has first-hand knowledge that absolutely refutes what you are saying.<p>The Democratic party is more anti-ai than the Republican party and unfortunately both of them are increasingly responding to astroturfed populism.<p>Do you think Bernie Sanders in AOC are pro-ai? Are you kidding me? Have you seen what they say and the legislation they propose?
Yes, but they’re proposing legislation. Trump is legislating from the White House, through a series of bribes and corrupt conduct.<p>Not even on the same playing field. They just can’t be compared, they’re incomparable.
Also free speech/the first amendment and various other rights people are supposed to have but don't in practice.
Not just that, Biden administration started with some AI regulation that the Trump administration nixed, and then outright banning models. Lunacy.
If you think that anthropic wasn't pushing aggressive regulatory capture legislation in the Biden administration, why do you think they hired a bunch of people from it?
What Anthropic was pushing for under Biden has very little to do with the values Republicans have been espousing (and failing to live up to) for decades. That's kind of the point op was making. Republicans run on small government but do not deliver it. Democrats do not run on small government. Democrat Presidents campaign on and push for things like the ACA, they don't have fun quips like, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”<p>A clear regulatory framework to operate within allows businesses to operate within it rather than get surprised by the King's whims upending their business on every few Fridays. If you expect regulation will eventually happen, pushing for it to happen on terms you're able to comply with rather than as haphazard surprises is pretty sensible.
It's very fashionable to hate on the current administration, despite what the previous administration was doing. That's reality and I'll be punished to hell for saying so.
Then cry as you look for the free market/small government leaders.
Ever since I've been conscious (the 80s), it's been the party of fear, violence and greed. They've consistently nominated actual clowns for positions of power. B-movie actor Ronald Reagan... Dan Quayle... Sarah Palin... the current, truly stunning iteration of absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy TWICE after he killed hundreds of thousands of people due to COVID/vaccine skepticism and staged a violent attack on the capitol after losing a democratic election.<p>Free market? Small government? Big police state, trillions in defense contractor grift, unsustainable tax breaks to the wealthiest leading to massive spending deficits... all while doing everything to erode access to education, healthcare and basic services.<p>It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.<p>edit: typo
> It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.<p>People get quite a kick out of seeing people they don't like get hurt. They can stay entertained by that for a long time until it bites them.<p>Only now is it finally biting with the collapse of the rural medical clinics, the war induced spike in the price of gasoline, etc.<p>That's probably playing a big part in the seeming shift in the electorate in every election.
Republicans trust Americans with guns and not an LLM. That should tell you something.
Which party is?
its all trump, he is a megalomaniac, not affiliated with any party but his own
They have affiliated themselves to him. Watch, within a month of Democrats being back in power they’ll be harping small government, denigrating the national debt they ballooned themselves. There’s no reason to help them attempt to disavow it.
But it's not just him, it's the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.
> the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.<p>That's untrue.<p>If you do some homework you will see Republican politicians and the Supreme Court disagreeing on a number of issues. Amongst Republican voters, his approval rating has been sliding and is now below 80% in most polls.
They passed one major piece of legislation since he took office and it was loaded with pork to get everyone onboard. I wouldn't call that aggressive. The Right is very fractured right now.
At least in part that's because they've stopped legislating. The executive now basically just does whatever it wants.
The right is fractured is several ways but there is one unifying value: unquestioning support for Trump
I can't tell if you're disingenuous or just ignorant. The Trump admin has been completely coopted by the pro-Israel lobby and Big Tech. He betrayed his entire base. He's ruling by executive fiat (EOs). Anyone that speaks out publicly for the original platform gets a primary challenger funded by Miriam Adelson or threats. See Thomas Massie, MTG, Lauren Boebert, etc. Are you paying attention at all? The Boomers watching Fox News propaganda in their nursing homes all day are not a reflection of party unity.
The Fox News boomers were pawns, but everyone knew that. Trump is a “money talks” kind of guy, that’s why people voted for him.<p>Yes that was shortsighted but it’s worked out well for trump. He can basically just… do whatever. Nobody needs to legislate, he’s essentially congress at this point.
It's fractured as a consequence of its own actions, which all of its constituent members bear direct responsibility for.<p>Epstein cover up? Iran? COVID denialism? Complete disregard for rule of law? Accepting massive, direct bribes? Trying to control broadcast media?<p>That's all on the Republican party as a collective, who did absolutely nothing to resist it and everything to put him in power TWICE. TWICE.
it's actually the entire party that's propping him up. If it was just trump he would be living on the street.
Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find.<p>While Trump is a megalomanic and does whatever he wants, he has the mandate of the Republican party, whose elected officials could choose at any moment to end this by withdrawing support.<p>Don't let them off the hook.
It seems people can flip that coin whenever it suits them.
And yet the rest of the party falls in behind him.
The entire Republican party in all branches of government is supporting Trump. His politics and the Republican party politics are one and the same. The last election the party did not have a platform because, quite literally, they said that whatever Trump says _is_ their platform.
[flagged]
Some things are just true. Rape bad, murder bad, war bad. I have never understood this reasoning.<p>If things are bad are we just supposed to… pretend… they’re not? And that… would help things? Like how? What’s even the mechanism for that?
He's a Republican backed by the Republican establishment funded by Republican donors and massively influential in Republican primaries. Republicans voted him into power twice. Republicans pushed his voter fraud narrative. Republicans embraced his vaccine skepticism and killed countless Americans. Republicans voted for his ICE policies that murdered two citizens of my home state.<p>Republicans caused this disaster and are all, each and every, individually morally responsible for putting Trump in power.<p>Republican voters, Republican politicians, Republican donors and the Republican political machine.<p>They picked the losing side of history and they can sink with it.
[flagged]
> a much greater injury and death rate attributable to vaccines than COVID.<p>Explain Australia then, specifically the absence of nation wide injury and death following the short period in which 98% of a population ~ 24 million or so, got two to three rounds of vaccines with a new definition.<p>Fantastic case study for such widespread ill effects to clearly and unambiguously show up - the country is isolated and has had world class epidemiology researchers plugged into integrated national health records for 50+ years.
[flagged]
Data first.<p>What was that injury rate in Australia, how many of the > 20 million vaccine recipients died or were injured by vaccines.<p>Where are these deaths and injuries greater in magnitude than COVID deaths and injuries?<p>I cannot answer for you or your governments odd notions. Feel free to concentrate on actually making and landing a solid point with peer commenter azan.
Right but at the end of the day how many people died from the Covid vaccine?<p>We all need a healthy dose of reality. Yes the vaccine rollout was not perfect. But 1 million Americans died from Covid. And that’s that, if we can’t even agree on reality then there’s no point in arguing.
What I'm reading is that you agree Trump represents the republican party. Great, the gp's comment has been settled.
Okay. I can't say I care much who he represents. I'm more concerned with the fact that half the country is okay with pardoning a war criminal who committed a biological weapons attack on literally every country in the world, including the US.<p>If I have to pick between a murderer and literally killing everyone on earth I'll pick the murderer because I'm not a psychopath.<p>Can you blame me?
Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives. That’s what actual research shows, not your delusions. I’m biochemistry phd so yeah, step up.
Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy.<p>If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling.<p>And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself.<p>Please prove me wrong.<p>Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one).<p>I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
Considering there's no such thing as a "free market" I've been laughing for a real long time. Markets require regulation and enforcement to function.<p>The US government was created to protect the interests of rich, white, male slave owners. And if you look at Louisiana State Penintentiary (often called "Angola"), which is essentialy a Southern plantation with forced labor, you realize not as much has changed as you might otherwise think.
Is there a list of the partners that get access? That should be public, right?
80% of the irrationally angry comments here have zero clue how export controls work and is giving me serious Dunning Kruger vibes.<p>Please go read US history before sounding off on this topic. These laws have existed for decades.
Just because a policy is legal doesn't mean it cannot be disastrous.
I'm not being facetious, can you direct us to which laws are in play here? Specifically, why different models can be classified as different exports that need separate approvals?
I thought Fable was a "safer" Mythos?!
To the surprise of absolutely nobody following the news
It feels the U.S. is moving closer to a textbook definition of crony capitalism. Really sad but unsurprising with the current administration.
This is what “stacking the deck” looks like
One more aspect where the US can no longer be counted on.<p>Let's hope this creates a bit more fire under the asses of other countries
Wowee, just happens to be on the same day of OpenAI's Sol announcement. How convenient for Dario and Anthropic!
Why would they allow Mythos but not Fable? Fable is the one with more guardrails.
They only allow it for specific companies and agencies, which are trusted with the less restricted model. The general public is still not trusted to use Fable, apparently.
To quote famed businessman and philosopher Eugene Krabs: "Money."
I identify as a trusted partner, can I have one Mythos please.
Congrats sama. Such a great sophisticated 5d chess move.
Meanwhile, China is pushing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO), which, in the face of internal divisions and impotent leadership among Western nations, could prove to be the first global regime that China gets to build and lead.
* to some US companies.<p>Asterisk the size of a Mac truck.<p>Also <i>this</i> administration having say over who gets access to what AI is just so much more grift corruption and picking your favorites / destroying others, for these incdecent undemocratic in American grifters who've seized our state.
america is worrying about a civil war and missing the corporate takeover
Land of the free, land of the brave. Free market. Freedom of speech. Market economy.<p>These words don’t mean what they use to anymore. Newspeak is in full swing. Words still sound the same and are written in the same way but now mean something completely different. If Mao and Stalin were alive, they would be nodding approvingly.
should see 5.6 any day now
despicable
Original source: <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2026/us-releases-powerful-anthropic-model-mythos-to-some-us-companies" rel="nofollow">https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2026/us-releases-power...</a>
[dead]
TL;DR - OpenAI and Anthropic are both allowed to ship their most powerful models to a small number of companies pre-approved by Trump.
Who needs freedom of speech anyway? I'm just glad the trump admin is looking out for by best interests. /s
>Who needs freedom of speech anyway?<p>I vividly recall that freedom of speech is racist now, so good riddance.
Sarcasm Detected, -40 Ameripoints have been deducted from your account. Have a nice day!
Why post a content free link to Twitter for this?