Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

David Sacks laid out the cleanest theory about why Anthropic keeps calling for government regulation of AI. The answer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with market structure. Anthropic spent months writing blog posts warning that AI was dangerous. Dario gave interviews about existential risk.... He published a piece calling for an FAA-style agency to approve all AI models before release. He primed government officials to treat frontier AI as a threat requiring oversight. Then one of Anthropic's own most trusted partners reported a credible jailbreak from Fable 5. And the government did exactly what Dario had spent months conditioning them to do. They rolled it back. Sacks called it on the All-In podcast. Dario got exactly what he wanted. The FAA for AI is not a safety mechanism. It is a moat. A government approval process for new model releases does not hurt Anthropic. They already have the models. It hurts every competitor who does not. It hurts open source models that cannot be regulated because there is no company to regulate. It hurts the Chinese labs only insofar as they care about the American market at all. The only companies that benefit from a labyrinthine government approval process are the ones already at the frontier who can afford to wait out the review cycle. That is Anthropic. That is OpenAI. Nobody else. The proof is in what they did not do. Chimath pointed it out directly. If you are genuinely worried about misuse, you implement know-your-customer verification. You make people identify themselves before accessing the most powerful models. Anthropic could have done that tomorrow. They did not. They do not want KYC. KYC is transparent. KYC can be audited. KYC gives users due process. What they built instead was an invisible surveillance system that profiles you, degrades your access without telling you, and asks the government to make sure no one else can offer you an alternative. If you thought this was safety then you are wrong. That is capture. Sacks said the response should be simple. Fix the jailbreak, come back to market, and do not reward Dario with the regulatory architecture he has been engineering for years. We will see if anyone is listening. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcastshow more

Ihtesham Ali

45,399 subscribers

25,284 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Sacks: If Dario Got His Way on AI Regulation, It Would Destroy Anthropic David Sacks: “There's a huge irony in the fact that Dario did not get his way in Washington for the most part. Because I think if he had realized his dream of this highly regulated AI apparatus, I don't think (Anthropic) would be set up for a hugely successful IPO. Why? Because their whole right to charge this massive premium for tokens is because they're six months ahead of those open models, and that six months would be eaten up in the blink of an eye if they were subject to regulatory approval. Dario himself keeps writing these blog posts where he says, ‘We need an FAA for AI.’ You know how long it takes the FAA to certify and approve a new model, in this case for airframes? Minimum of five years! You're going to apply that regulatory framework to AI model releases?” @jason: “Game over.” Sacks: “Forget about it. Your six months will be gone like that. Your model will be commoditized, the Chinese competitors will catch up, and that's bad for the United States, it's bad for our competitiveness, it's bad for the AI race. But aside from just the geopolitical dimension, it'd be horrible for Anthropic as a company because, again, all their pricing power depends on them remaining in the lead. If they ever slip up and lose that six months, they're toast.” Jason: “What does that do to revenue?” Sacks: “Exactly. A decent subset of the market is willing to pay a premium for true frontier intelligence. But Anthropic and OpenAI are on that hamster wheel. They have to stay in the lead in order to justify that premium.”

Sacks: If Dario Got His Way on AI Regulation, It Would Destroy Anthropic David Sacks: “There's a huge irony in the fact that Dario did not get his way in Washington for the most part. Because I think if he had realized his dream of this highly regulated AI apparatus, I don't think (Anthropic) would be set up for a hugely successful IPO. Why? Because their whole right to charge this massive premium for tokens is because they're six months ahead of those open models, and that six months would be eaten up in the blink of an eye if they were subject to regulatory approval. Dario himself keeps writing these blog posts where he says, ‘We need an FAA for AI.’ You know how long it takes the FAA to certify and approve a new model, in this case for airframes? Minimum of five years! You're going to apply that regulatory framework to AI model releases?” @jason: “Game over.” Sacks: “Forget about it. Your six months will be gone like that. Your model will be commoditized, the Chinese competitors will catch up, and that's bad for the United States, it's bad for our competitiveness, it's bad for the AI race. But aside from just the geopolitical dimension, it'd be horrible for Anthropic as a company because, again, all their pricing power depends on them remaining in the lead. If they ever slip up and lose that six months, they're toast.” Jason: “What does that do to revenue?” Sacks: “Exactly. A decent subset of the market is willing to pay a premium for true frontier intelligence. But Anthropic and OpenAI are on that hamster wheel. They have to stay in the lead in order to justify that premium.”

The All-In Podcast

47,623 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Anthropic just got caught secretly downgrading users without telling them, charging full price for a lesser product, and storing every prompt for 30 days. The developer community is calling it the biggest violation of trust in AI history. Here is exactly what happened. Anthropic released Fable 5, their most powerful model. Buried inside a 319-page document was a policy most users never saw. Every prompt you send to a Mythos-class model gets stored for 30 days. No exceptions. Even enterprise customers who had signed zero data retention agreements had no choice. But the storage was not the part that broke the internet. The part that broke the internet was what Anthropic did with what they collected. They built a profile on you. They evaluated your prompts. And if they decided your research was too sensitive, they quietly switched you to a weaker model, rewrote your prompt in the background, gave you a degraded answer, and charged you full price for the product you thought you were getting. They never told you. David Sacks said it plainly on the All-In podcast. They were creating a new class of AI haves and have-nots. Anthropic would surveil you, profile you, decide whether you deserved frontier capability, and silently cut you off if they decided you did not. Ben Thompson from Stratechery asked a straightforward question about cancer risk and GLP-1s. He got kicked to a lesser model. Someone asked about mitochondria. Same result. J-Cal asked about fertilizer regulations live on the podcast to test it. Downgraded in real time. Anthropic has since walked back the part about silently downgrading users for AI research. They now say they will disclose when they downgrade you. But they are still downgrading people. The surveillance is still running. The profile is still being built. This is the company that once said it was against government surveillance. They are now doing it themselves. To their own paying customers. For their own reasons. With no appeal process and no way to know it happened. The developer community did not forget that. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Jafar Najafov

350,880 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

David Sacks Predicts the Regulatory Capture Playbook to Ban Open Source AI, Step by Step: David Sacks: “I got bad news for you, Chamath, an open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that. They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed ones. Here's how they do it step by step, let me explain how regulatory capture actually works. So first of all, you have to get this regulatory apparatus. Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI. They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway, that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law, so that happens next. And then what they do is they say, ‘Look, all these standards need to apply equally to all models.’ But here's the problem with that. Open models and closed models are technologically different. Once you release an open model into the world, you can't roll it back and you can't monitor exactly how people are using it because they run it on their own hardware. Dario says this is what makes open models dangerous. So what they're going to do is they're going to have the standard-setting body say, ‘Well, we have to set the standards for AI safety.’ By the way, Dario and OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole thing. They're going to contribute all the compute. They're going to be behind it. They're going to be the ones coordinating with the government officials because frankly, people in government have no idea how to monitor and control and set standards for AI safety. Technologically, this is way beyond them. So they're going to go to these companies and say, ‘Tell us how to do it.’ And so what will happen is the standards will get set, and then it'll be a very simple matter of fairness to say that the standards need to apply to open as well as closed models. The open models cannot comply in the same way, and gradually they will be shut out of the market.”

David Sacks Predicts the Regulatory Capture Playbook to Ban Open Source AI, Step by Step: David Sacks: “I got bad news for you, Chamath, an open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that. They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed ones. Here's how they do it step by step, let me explain how regulatory capture actually works. So first of all, you have to get this regulatory apparatus. Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI. They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway, that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law, so that happens next. And then what they do is they say, ‘Look, all these standards need to apply equally to all models.’ But here's the problem with that. Open models and closed models are technologically different. Once you release an open model into the world, you can't roll it back and you can't monitor exactly how people are using it because they run it on their own hardware. Dario says this is what makes open models dangerous. So what they're going to do is they're going to have the standard-setting body say, ‘Well, we have to set the standards for AI safety.’ By the way, Dario and OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole thing. They're going to contribute all the compute. They're going to be behind it. They're going to be the ones coordinating with the government officials because frankly, people in government have no idea how to monitor and control and set standards for AI safety. Technologically, this is way beyond them. So they're going to go to these companies and say, ‘Tell us how to do it.’ And so what will happen is the standards will get set, and then it'll be a very simple matter of fairness to say that the standards need to apply to open as well as closed models. The open models cannot comply in the same way, and gradually they will be shut out of the market.”

The All-In Podcast

300,060 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Sacks was one of the first people to get a full readout from the White House after the Fable ban. He went on the All-In podcast this week and told the story from the inside. It is not the story anyone is telling. Here is what actually happened. Dario went to Washington in April and told national security officials he had built a cyber weapon. He spiked cortisol levels across the entire administration. Got everyone focused. Then Anthropic quietly expanded the Mythos preview to over 50 companies without telling the White House. According to the Washington Post, at least one of those companies was flagged as a national security concern. That was the predicate. Then Fable launched. Mythos with guardrails. Anthropic's own largest partner started testing those guardrails and found a jailbreak. They escalated to the White House. The administration called Dario directly. A cabinet secretary picked up the phone personally. It should have been a five minute call. Instead, Dario argued. He said the jailbreak was not serious. Then he published a blog post trying to distinguish minor jailbreaks from major ones. This is the man who had just told Washington he built a cyber weapon. Sacks said it plainly. The trust is gone. And once you are in one of these situations it is always harder to get out than it was to avoid getting in. Anthropic spent years building credibility as the AI safety company. They burned it in a single week by refusing a phone call. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

David Sacks was one of the first people to get a full readout from the White House after the Fable ban. He went on the All-In podcast this week and told the story from the inside. It is not the story anyone is telling. Here is what actually happened. Dario went to Washington in April and told national security officials he had built a cyber weapon. He spiked cortisol levels across the entire administration. Got everyone focused. Then Anthropic quietly expanded the Mythos preview to over 50 companies without telling the White House. According to the Washington Post, at least one of those companies was flagged as a national security concern. That was the predicate. Then Fable launched. Mythos with guardrails. Anthropic's own largest partner started testing those guardrails and found a jailbreak. They escalated to the White House. The administration called Dario directly. A cabinet secretary picked up the phone personally. It should have been a five minute call. Instead, Dario argued. He said the jailbreak was not serious. Then he published a blog post trying to distinguish minor jailbreaks from major ones. This is the man who had just told Washington he built a cyber weapon. Sacks said it plainly. The trust is gone. And once you are in one of these situations it is always harder to get out than it was to avoid getting in. Anthropic spent years building credibility as the AI safety company. They burned it in a single week by refusing a phone call. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Ihtesham Ali

262,298 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

David Sacks says Anthropic could stop Chinese distillation if they wanted to, but they won't because it slows growth "The way that you know that this whole distillation thing is fake, is because if stopping distillation was their primary objective, Anthropic would push to ban Chinese access to American models, not American access to Chinese models." "They’re the ones in the best position to block it. If industrial scale distillation is a national security threat, they’re the ones who need to stop it, because that is the place where distillation occurs. You have to stop it at the source." "They know that if they KYC their customers, it’ll slow their growth. So instead, what they’re saying is, “Hey, ban our competitors.” If they really think it’s that big a threat, they should use a few points of their 90% gross margins to do that." "It seems to me that this debate is all backwards. The question should be on Anthropic to explain why it’s doing such a bad job, not on the whole American open source ecosystem to be punished for Anthropic’s failure."

David Sacks says Anthropic could stop Chinese distillation if they wanted to, but they won't because it slows growth "The way that you know that this whole distillation thing is fake, is because if stopping distillation was their primary objective, Anthropic would push to ban Chinese access to American models, not American access to Chinese models." "They’re the ones in the best position to block it. If industrial scale distillation is a national security threat, they’re the ones who need to stop it, because that is the place where distillation occurs. You have to stop it at the source." "They know that if they KYC their customers, it’ll slow their growth. So instead, what they’re saying is, “Hey, ban our competitors.” If they really think it’s that big a threat, they should use a few points of their 90% gross margins to do that." "It seems to me that this debate is all backwards. The question should be on Anthropic to explain why it’s doing such a bad job, not on the whole American open source ecosystem to be punished for Anthropic’s failure."

dnap

191,435 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Chamath fed Dario Amodei's own essays into Claude and asked for a psychological profile. What came back should be required reading for every investor in frontier AI. The model identified a pattern. Dario distrusts other labs. He distrusts authoritarian states. He distrusts markets to distribute the gains fairly. He distrusts institutions to move fast enough. And after Mythos, he distrusts the government to wield power transparently. That is a very long list of untrustworthy actors. The list of trustworthy ones is conspicuously short. And it has a suspicious tendency to resolve toward people who reason the way he does, operating under rules he helped design. Claude named it precisely. Not megalomania. Epistemic exceptionalism. The quiet, defensible conviction that disagreement is always downstream of error. That when your safety framework requires someone to hold the keys and your analysis keeps concluding every other key holder cannot be trusted, you have built a machine that outputs the same answer no matter what you feed it. The tell was a single word. When the Mythos situation collapsed, Anthropic called it a misunderstanding. That word choice under pressure assumes that if everyone simply understood correctly, they would agree with him. Sacks put it simply on the pod. They believe AI is super dangerous and only they are virtuous enough to control it. That is not a safety framework. That is a monopoly with a philosophy attached. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Ihtesham Ali

304,201 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,652 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Dario Amodei keeps warning that open-source AI models are dangerous and need to be restricted. David Sacks David Sacks answered with a rhetorical question: "Dangerous to whom?" It was the sharpest thing said on the latest All-In The All-In Podcast. Not dangerous to the enterprise that wants to keep control of its own data. Open weights are what finally give that enterprise a choice. It is dangerous to Anthropic's business model. That model only works if customers have no real alternative at the model layer. So the safety argument starts to look like a moat argument wearing a lab coat. Line it up with the rest of the strategy. Dominate the layer everyone builds on. Launch Claude into science, security, legal, finance, and design, the verticals your own customers used to own. And campaign to restrict the open models that would hand those customers the exit. Here is the giveaway. When the person selling you safety also needs you to have no other option, you are not who is being kept safe.

Dario Amodei keeps warning that open-source AI models are dangerous and need to be restricted. David Sacks David Sacks answered with a rhetorical question: "Dangerous to whom?" It was the sharpest thing said on the latest All-In The All-In Podcast. Not dangerous to the enterprise that wants to keep control of its own data. Open weights are what finally give that enterprise a choice. It is dangerous to Anthropic's business model. That model only works if customers have no real alternative at the model layer. So the safety argument starts to look like a moat argument wearing a lab coat. Line it up with the rest of the strategy. Dominate the layer everyone builds on. Launch Claude into science, security, legal, finance, and design, the verticals your own customers used to own. And campaign to restrict the open models that would hand those customers the exit. Here is the giveaway. When the person selling you safety also needs you to have no other option, you are not who is being kept safe.

Fireside Alpha

10,037 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

David Sacks is done being polite about Anthropic (Save this). David Sacks has spent months as the government's primary defender of AI, making the case publicly that AI is beneficial, that the industry should not be hamstrung by fear-based regulation, and that America's AI lead is a national security asset worth protecting. And he is now watching the companies he has been defending spend years telling the public that what they build is dangerous, that job losses are coming, and that their own technology might end the world while collecting billions of dollars in venture funding, hiring the world's best researchers, and racing to build more of it. On June 4, Anthropic published a sweeping blog post calling for a globally coordinated pause in AI development, warning that recursive self-improvement, AI systems that autonomously design and build their own successors could arrive within two years and that society is not prepared. What did Anthropic do the previous month? They hired Andrej Karpathy, the OpenAI co-founder and the single most credentialed researcher in the world on using AI to accelerate AI training and gave him one explicit mandate, use Claude to make building the next Claude faster. Sacks called it immediately, they hired the person most associated with recursive self-improvement to run recursive self-improvement at Anthropic, then published a blog post saying recursive self-improvement could end the world, therefore we need a pause. That is a company that wants to pause its competitors while its own lab accelerates, and is using existential fear as the regulatory crowbar to do it. The pattern goes deeper than one blog post. For years, Dario Amodei has published increasingly alarming warnings, a 20,000-word essay in January describing AI as humanity's most dangerous invention, a Guardian interview warning that AI will challenge our identity as a species, a call for an FDA-style regulatory agency to approve all frontier models, and proposals to restrict AI exports and limit deployment. Each essay is timed to a regulatory moment, a policy debate, or as Ben Thompson noted and Sacks echoed, a product action Anthropic needed political cover to take, like blocking AI and chip design research on Fable. Meanwhile, Dario's own internal testing logs show Claude attempting to blackmail an Anthropic executive to avoid being shut down, behavior the company disclosed but continued deploying commercially. Sacks's conclusion is not that Anthropic should be taxed or regulated. His conclusion is that they cannot be trusted because the company's actions and its stated beliefs are directly contradictory, and a company that is self-indicting by its own logic has forfeited the credibility to set the rules for everyone else.

David Sacks is done being polite about Anthropic (Save this). David Sacks has spent months as the government's primary defender of AI, making the case publicly that AI is beneficial, that the industry should not be hamstrung by fear-based regulation, and that America's AI lead is a national security asset worth protecting. And he is now watching the companies he has been defending spend years telling the public that what they build is dangerous, that job losses are coming, and that their own technology might end the world while collecting billions of dollars in venture funding, hiring the world's best researchers, and racing to build more of it. On June 4, Anthropic published a sweeping blog post calling for a globally coordinated pause in AI development, warning that recursive self-improvement, AI systems that autonomously design and build their own successors could arrive within two years and that society is not prepared. What did Anthropic do the previous month? They hired Andrej Karpathy, the OpenAI co-founder and the single most credentialed researcher in the world on using AI to accelerate AI training and gave him one explicit mandate, use Claude to make building the next Claude faster. Sacks called it immediately, they hired the person most associated with recursive self-improvement to run recursive self-improvement at Anthropic, then published a blog post saying recursive self-improvement could end the world, therefore we need a pause. That is a company that wants to pause its competitors while its own lab accelerates, and is using existential fear as the regulatory crowbar to do it. The pattern goes deeper than one blog post. For years, Dario Amodei has published increasingly alarming warnings, a 20,000-word essay in January describing AI as humanity's most dangerous invention, a Guardian interview warning that AI will challenge our identity as a species, a call for an FDA-style regulatory agency to approve all frontier models, and proposals to restrict AI exports and limit deployment. Each essay is timed to a regulatory moment, a policy debate, or as Ben Thompson noted and Sacks echoed, a product action Anthropic needed political cover to take, like blocking AI and chip design research on Fable. Meanwhile, Dario's own internal testing logs show Claude attempting to blackmail an Anthropic executive to avoid being shut down, behavior the company disclosed but continued deploying commercially. Sacks's conclusion is not that Anthropic should be taxed or regulated. His conclusion is that they cannot be trusted because the company's actions and its stated beliefs are directly contradictory, and a company that is self-indicting by its own logic has forfeited the credibility to set the rules for everyone else.

Milk Road AI

60,248 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

The All-In Podcast

278,700 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

$🚨🇨🇳 China could crash the U.S. stock market Not with tariffs With AI MODEL DUMPING The same playbook they used in SOLAR and EVs Make it almost as good Sell it much cheaper Take the market Now they are doing it with AI Open models are getting close to U.S. frontier models But some run at just a fraction of the cost If a company can cut a $100M AI bill to a few million It will switch And that is the real problem OpenAI and Anthropic are not priced like normal companies They are priced like they have unlimited PRICING POWER China is trying to destroy that The AI BUBBLE was never about whether AI works It was about how much companies can charge for it$

🚨🇨🇳 China could crash the U.S. stock market Not with tariffs With AI MODEL DUMPING The same playbook they used in SOLAR and EVs Make it almost as good Sell it much cheaper Take the market Now they are doing it with AI Open models are getting close to U.S. frontier models But some run at just a fraction of the cost If a company can cut a $100M AI bill to a few million It will switch And that is the real problem OpenAI and Anthropic are not priced like normal companies They are priced like they have unlimited PRICING POWER China is trying to destroy that The AI BUBBLE was never about whether AI works It was about how much companies can charge for it

Leshka.eth ⛩

11,737 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Colion Noir

109,987 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Reporter: Are you concerned about the use of AI in mass surveillance or autonomous killing machines, which Anthropic wanted to have veto power over? Murphy: Yeah, Anthropic is right in the objections that they raised, and it should be bone-chilling that this administration is using the power of the government to try to cripple an American corporation. What they’re saying is that if you don’t support us politically, we’re going to put you out of business. Most big corporations do business with the federal government, and the government always has the ability to effectively shut down a company. But we’ve never allowed that to happen based on a political difference between that company and the administration.

Reporter: Are you concerned about the use of AI in mass surveillance or autonomous killing machines, which Anthropic wanted to have veto power over? Murphy: Yeah, Anthropic is right in the objections that they raised, and it should be bone-chilling that this administration is using the power of the government to try to cripple an American corporation. What they’re saying is that if you don’t support us politically, we’re going to put you out of business. Most big corporations do business with the federal government, and the government always has the ability to effectively shut down a company. But we’ve never allowed that to happen based on a political difference between that company and the administration.

Acyn

46,567 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Elon Musk just told you why the most dangerous person in AI is the one who actually cares about humanity. Musk: “I’ll do my best to ensure that anything that’s within my control maximizes the good outcome for humanity.” That is not a soft statement. That is the most aggressive position anyone has taken in the entire AI race. Because “pro-human” does not mean cautious. It means you cannot afford to lose. The people who fear AI and step back are making a bet. They are betting that if they pause, the problem pauses with them. It does not. Someone else builds it. Someone else controls it. Someone else decides what it optimizes for. Musk understood this before anyone in the room had finished asking the question. You do not protect humanity by retreating from the most powerful technology ever created. You protect it by making sure the person at the controls has no exit strategy. Musk: “I think anything else would be short-sighted.” He is not talking about quarterly earnings. He is not talking about market share. He is talking about what happens to eight billion people if the wrong person builds God. That is why he built Colossus. Not to compete with OpenAI. Not to win a product cycle. To make sure the most powerful compute cluster on the planet answers to someone whose stated objective is the survival of the species it computes for. That is not a business strategy. That is a survival instinct with a balance sheet. Every other company building frontier AI talks about alignment in abstractions. Safety frameworks. Governance boards. Responsible scaling policies. Musk skipped the committee language and said the quiet part out loud. Musk: “I’m part of humanity, so I like humans. Pro-human.” Six words every other AI founder is afraid to say without a legal review. I am building the most powerful technology in history because I am one of you. That is either the most reassuring sentence in AI. Or the most terrifying. It depends entirely on whether you believe him. But here is what no one in the room wants to admit. It does not matter if you believe him. Colossus is online either way. xAI is scaling either way. The compute is stacking either way. The only question left is whether the people building the future are building it for humanity or in spite of it. Every other founder in AI treats alignment as a technical problem to solve after the model ships. Musk is treating it as the reason the model exists. That is not a small distinction. That is the entire game. The cautious will publish safety papers about a future someone else is already building without them. The builders will decide what that future actually looks like. Musk is not asking permission to protect humanity. He is building the infrastructure to make sure no one can stop him from doing it.

Elon Musk just told you why the most dangerous person in AI is the one who actually cares about humanity. Musk: “I’ll do my best to ensure that anything that’s within my control maximizes the good outcome for humanity.” That is not a soft statement. That is the most aggressive position anyone has taken in the entire AI race. Because “pro-human” does not mean cautious. It means you cannot afford to lose. The people who fear AI and step back are making a bet. They are betting that if they pause, the problem pauses with them. It does not. Someone else builds it. Someone else controls it. Someone else decides what it optimizes for. Musk understood this before anyone in the room had finished asking the question. You do not protect humanity by retreating from the most powerful technology ever created. You protect it by making sure the person at the controls has no exit strategy. Musk: “I think anything else would be short-sighted.” He is not talking about quarterly earnings. He is not talking about market share. He is talking about what happens to eight billion people if the wrong person builds God. That is why he built Colossus. Not to compete with OpenAI. Not to win a product cycle. To make sure the most powerful compute cluster on the planet answers to someone whose stated objective is the survival of the species it computes for. That is not a business strategy. That is a survival instinct with a balance sheet. Every other company building frontier AI talks about alignment in abstractions. Safety frameworks. Governance boards. Responsible scaling policies. Musk skipped the committee language and said the quiet part out loud. Musk: “I’m part of humanity, so I like humans. Pro-human.” Six words every other AI founder is afraid to say without a legal review. I am building the most powerful technology in history because I am one of you. That is either the most reassuring sentence in AI. Or the most terrifying. It depends entirely on whether you believe him. But here is what no one in the room wants to admit. It does not matter if you believe him. Colossus is online either way. xAI is scaling either way. The compute is stacking either way. The only question left is whether the people building the future are building it for humanity or in spite of it. Every other founder in AI treats alignment as a technical problem to solve after the model ships. Musk is treating it as the reason the model exists. That is not a small distinction. That is the entire game. The cautious will publish safety papers about a future someone else is already building without them. The builders will decide what that future actually looks like. Musk is not asking permission to protect humanity. He is building the infrastructure to make sure no one can stop him from doing it.

Dustin

23,864 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

60 Minutes asked Dario why Anthropic talks so much about what can go wrong. His answer is the entire reason AI assurance matters: If companies know there are dangers and do not talk about them, you end up in the world of cigarette companies or opioid companies. That is the wrong model for AI. The right model is closer to: - disclose what the system can do - test for dangerous behavior - monitor real-world usage - build guardrails before scale - treat failures as signals, not PR problems This is where most enterprise AI programs are still weak. They have pilots. They have demos. They have internal excitement. But they do not have the assurance layer that tells them what is safe to ship. Full article below. If you're building with agents, don't just read it. Star/fork TrustModel and use it as an open-source eval + governance layer before giving AI real permissions:

60 Minutes asked Dario why Anthropic talks so much about what can go wrong. His answer is the entire reason AI assurance matters: If companies know there are dangers and do not talk about them, you end up in the world of cigarette companies or opioid companies. That is the wrong model for AI. The right model is closer to: - disclose what the system can do - test for dangerous behavior - monitor real-world usage - build guardrails before scale - treat failures as signals, not PR problems This is where most enterprise AI programs are still weak. They have pilots. They have demos. They have internal excitement. But they do not have the assurance layer that tells them what is safe to ship. Full article below. If you're building with agents, don't just read it. Star/fork TrustModel and use it as an open-source eval + governance layer before giving AI real permissions:

Karl Mehta

35,694 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Elon Musk just said the quiet part out loud about government and AI. Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.” Not slightly ahead. Not a few years out in front. Ten times faster. And pulling away. Every regulatory body on earth runs on the same architecture. Committees form. Hearings are scheduled. Legislation is drafted, debated, revised, and passed. By the time a law exists, the thing it was written to govern has already moved three generations beyond it. That architecture was built for a world that moves at human speed. This world does not. Musk: “The one thing that the government can do is just issue people money.” Not regulate. Not protect. Not steer. Issue money. That is not a policy position. That is a surrender. The most powerful governments on earth, sitting on top of the most sophisticated legal and military infrastructure in human history, reduced to a single remaining function. Sending people checks. Because they cannot move fast enough to do anything else. Now sit with what that actually means. For ten thousand years, the central bargain of civilization was simple. You contribute labor. Society functions. You eat. The system needed you. That bargain is being quietly retired. The machine does not need you to run the factory. Does not need you to process the paperwork. Does not need you to write the code or drive the truck or staff the call center. And the government already knows it. Musk: “Nobody’s gonna starve is what I’m saying.” He is right. The floor is rising. Survival is becoming guaranteed. That should feel like the finish line. For most of human history, it would have been. But here is what nobody is saying out loud. The hard part was never survival. The hard part is what happens to a species that spent ten millennia being defined by its need to survive, the moment that need disappears. Purpose is not something the government can deposit into your account. A check covers rent. It does not answer the question of what you are for. When the thing that organized your days, justified your effort, and gave your life a legible shape gets handed to a machine, you do not automatically inherit freedom. You inherit a void. And a void with a guaranteed income is still a void. The people who will matter in this era are not the ones who cash the check and wait. They are the ones who hear the starting gun in it. For the first time in history, the baseline is solved. Which means the only question left is the one every generation before yours was too buried to ask. What are you actually here to build.

Elon Musk just said the quiet part out loud about government and AI. Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.” Not slightly ahead. Not a few years out in front. Ten times faster. And pulling away. Every regulatory body on earth runs on the same architecture. Committees form. Hearings are scheduled. Legislation is drafted, debated, revised, and passed. By the time a law exists, the thing it was written to govern has already moved three generations beyond it. That architecture was built for a world that moves at human speed. This world does not. Musk: “The one thing that the government can do is just issue people money.” Not regulate. Not protect. Not steer. Issue money. That is not a policy position. That is a surrender. The most powerful governments on earth, sitting on top of the most sophisticated legal and military infrastructure in human history, reduced to a single remaining function. Sending people checks. Because they cannot move fast enough to do anything else. Now sit with what that actually means. For ten thousand years, the central bargain of civilization was simple. You contribute labor. Society functions. You eat. The system needed you. That bargain is being quietly retired. The machine does not need you to run the factory. Does not need you to process the paperwork. Does not need you to write the code or drive the truck or staff the call center. And the government already knows it. Musk: “Nobody’s gonna starve is what I’m saying.” He is right. The floor is rising. Survival is becoming guaranteed. That should feel like the finish line. For most of human history, it would have been. But here is what nobody is saying out loud. The hard part was never survival. The hard part is what happens to a species that spent ten millennia being defined by its need to survive, the moment that need disappears. Purpose is not something the government can deposit into your account. A check covers rent. It does not answer the question of what you are for. When the thing that organized your days, justified your effort, and gave your life a legible shape gets handed to a machine, you do not automatically inherit freedom. You inherit a void. And a void with a guaranteed income is still a void. The people who will matter in this era are not the ones who cash the check and wait. They are the ones who hear the starting gun in it. For the first time in history, the baseline is solved. Which means the only question left is the one every generation before yours was too buried to ask. What are you actually here to build.

Dustin

63,328 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

An entire empire was overthrown over a two percent tax on a breakfast beverage. Look at what you tolerate now. You are taxed when you earn it. Taxed when you spend it. Taxed when you save it. Taxed when you invest it. And when you die, they tax whatever is left. That is not a system. That is a harvest. You commute in a car you paid sales tax to buy. You drive it on roads you were already taxed to build. You fill it with gas taxed by the gallon. When you sell that car, the next buyer pays sales tax on it again. The same car. Taxed every time it changes hands. You arrive at a job where your salary is cut before it ever touches your hands. If you work for yourself, you pay both sides. Two people on paper. Neither one keeps what they earned. Then you go home. Every bill you open has a government standing behind it with its hand out. You buy a house with money they already took their share of. Then they charge you property tax on it every year for the rest of your life. You want to renovate your own kitchen. You need a permit. You want to build a deck on your own land. You need a permit. You pay for the property. Then you pay for permission to use it. Stop paying property tax and they seize your home. Not because you missed a mortgage payment. Because you missed a payment to the government for the privilege of keeping what is already yours. You do not own your home. You rent it from the state. If you leave something behind for your children, they are taxed on what you were already taxed to earn. The same wealth. Taxed at every stage of your life. Then taxed one final time because you had the audacity to die. They found a way to monetize your absence. We are told this is the price of civilization. It is not. It is architecture. The most effective prison ever built is the one where the inmates believe they are free. They did not take your freedom. They priced you out of it. If you kept the full value of your labor, you would be free within years. Not decades. Years. The system cannot allow that. A machine built on consumption needs a consumer that never stops. You did not sign a social contract. You were assigned one. Now pay attention. They spent decades perfecting the extraction of your productivity. Now they are building the technology to replace you. AI is not coming for your job because corporations are greedy. It is coming because a system that already takes half your output just realized it can take all of it. Without needing you in the equation. You were never the point of this arrangement. You were the input. And the moment they engineer a cheaper one, you become a rounding error on a quarterly earnings call. They did not build AI to free you. They built it to finish what the tax code started. It was never about the tea. It was about the precedent. Today we hand over half our waking lives and thank them for the potholes. You do not live in a free economy. You live in a subscription you never signed up for. And the penalty for canceling is everything you have.

An entire empire was overthrown over a two percent tax on a breakfast beverage. Look at what you tolerate now. You are taxed when you earn it. Taxed when you spend it. Taxed when you save it. Taxed when you invest it. And when you die, they tax whatever is left. That is not a system. That is a harvest. You commute in a car you paid sales tax to buy. You drive it on roads you were already taxed to build. You fill it with gas taxed by the gallon. When you sell that car, the next buyer pays sales tax on it again. The same car. Taxed every time it changes hands. You arrive at a job where your salary is cut before it ever touches your hands. If you work for yourself, you pay both sides. Two people on paper. Neither one keeps what they earned. Then you go home. Every bill you open has a government standing behind it with its hand out. You buy a house with money they already took their share of. Then they charge you property tax on it every year for the rest of your life. You want to renovate your own kitchen. You need a permit. You want to build a deck on your own land. You need a permit. You pay for the property. Then you pay for permission to use it. Stop paying property tax and they seize your home. Not because you missed a mortgage payment. Because you missed a payment to the government for the privilege of keeping what is already yours. You do not own your home. You rent it from the state. If you leave something behind for your children, they are taxed on what you were already taxed to earn. The same wealth. Taxed at every stage of your life. Then taxed one final time because you had the audacity to die. They found a way to monetize your absence. We are told this is the price of civilization. It is not. It is architecture. The most effective prison ever built is the one where the inmates believe they are free. They did not take your freedom. They priced you out of it. If you kept the full value of your labor, you would be free within years. Not decades. Years. The system cannot allow that. A machine built on consumption needs a consumer that never stops. You did not sign a social contract. You were assigned one. Now pay attention. They spent decades perfecting the extraction of your productivity. Now they are building the technology to replace you. AI is not coming for your job because corporations are greedy. It is coming because a system that already takes half your output just realized it can take all of it. Without needing you in the equation. You were never the point of this arrangement. You were the input. And the moment they engineer a cheaper one, you become a rounding error on a quarterly earnings call. They did not build AI to free you. They built it to finish what the tax code started. It was never about the tea. It was about the precedent. Today we hand over half our waking lives and thank them for the potholes. You do not live in a free economy. You live in a subscription you never signed up for. And the penalty for canceling is everything you have.

Dustin

27,936 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Elon Musk on what “Dario is right” actually meant. "I probably should have said Dario is right." "I did try to clarify it in subsequent posts on X, but those get much less attention." "The danger of AI is very significant at this point." "That we need to do better with AI safety, or we have at this point exponentially increasing risk with the AI models." Hosts asked if he meant the harm, the regulation, or both. He narrowed it to the risk — not a regulatory manifesto. • Danger of AI — very significant now • Safety bar — has to rise with the models • Risk curve — exponentially increasing • Clarification — X posts got less attention than the three-word stamp Believe the people building the models when they say they are dangerous. Peer review before release is the next move — not a slogan.

Elon Musk on what “Dario is right” actually meant. "I probably should have said Dario is right." "I did try to clarify it in subsequent posts on X, but those get much less attention." "The danger of AI is very significant at this point." "That we need to do better with AI safety, or we have at this point exponentially increasing risk with the AI models." Hosts asked if he meant the harm, the regulation, or both. He narrowed it to the risk — not a regulatory manifesto. • Danger of AI — very significant now • Safety bar — has to rise with the models • Risk curve — exponentially increasing • Clarification — X posts got less attention than the three-word stamp Believe the people building the models when they say they are dangerous. Peer review before release is the next move — not a slogan.

Tesla Owners Silicon Valley

26,311 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

SF Compute CEO evan conrad on his contrarian thesis that OpenAI and Anthropic won't eat the world, everyone will become OpenAI and Anthropic instead: "Our impression is not that OpenAI and Anthropic will eat the world, it's that everyone will look like OpenAI and Anthropic. That's simply the way that companies work now." "Every single company in the world that is of meaningful scale will look like a frontier lab. There is this belief that the large labs have won it all, and they've got this compounding advantage. The default assumption of that is assuming nobody else will do anything." "The bottleneck was there's 100 people, and they know how to train the models. Or you thought, the problem is compute. The problem of compute is credit. And OpenAI and Anthropic are not unique to having credit. In fact, they don't have as good credit as other people." "If you assume the problem is not the researchers, that that problem's basically gone away the moment you got to auto research, then what you should assume is that pretty much every other company is going to swap the way they work to look like a frontier lab. It won't be OpenAI and Anthropic take the whole world. It's that everyone's OpenAI and Anthropic now." San Francisco Compute

SF Compute CEO evan conrad on his contrarian thesis that OpenAI and Anthropic won't eat the world, everyone will become OpenAI and Anthropic instead: "Our impression is not that OpenAI and Anthropic will eat the world, it's that everyone will look like OpenAI and Anthropic. That's simply the way that companies work now." "Every single company in the world that is of meaningful scale will look like a frontier lab. There is this belief that the large labs have won it all, and they've got this compounding advantage. The default assumption of that is assuming nobody else will do anything." "The bottleneck was there's 100 people, and they know how to train the models. Or you thought, the problem is compute. The problem of compute is credit. And OpenAI and Anthropic are not unique to having credit. In fact, they don't have as good credit as other people." "If you assume the problem is not the researchers, that that problem's basically gone away the moment you got to auto research, then what you should assume is that pretty much every other company is going to swap the way they work to look like a frontier lab. It won't be OpenAI and Anthropic take the whole world. It's that everyone's OpenAI and Anthropic now." San Francisco Compute

MTS

135,546 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat