Musk's proclaimed ambition is a superset of Amodei's, no? While both are racing towards AGI, only one is also trying to "back up" humanity to Mars, make their fully self-driving cars finally fully self-drive, dabble with a little human brain implant side project, datacenters in space, wars against fake mind virii, political kingmaking, something about tunnels, humanoid robots... His aggregate ambition is undoubtedly _less_ achievable by orders of magnitude.
This does, in all fairness, also imply that he has a higher upper bound for future possible "importance" / "benefit to humanity" - but in even more fairness, it is entirely irrelevant to my question, which was you believe Dario is >= as evil as Musk. An evil man doing good deeds is still an evil man; swapping "good deeds" with "ambition that enriches himself and may possibly help the rest of us in the future" doesn't make things any better. "Higher likelihood of his ambition ultimately benefiting humanity" does not make one less evil. (Neither does expressing clear disdain for a subset of humanity, thoughtlessly cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, cruelty towards your own child, etc).
A parting point: somebody who genuinely wants to save humanity and somebody who genuinely wants to be heralded as a savior of humanity are two very different types of people with very similar outward signals. A savior complex and a messiah complex look the same from the surface.
> Organizations interested in model access may join the GPT 5.6 waitlist line, hosted at OpenAI's official Palm Spring satellite campus. Line begins at rear entrance with expedited VIP waitlist line options for holders of partnering cryptocurrency tokens. Application fee required for access to venue; waivers available for select US corporations.
That is a strawman. My contention is what you just implicitly acknowledged - there is not information put out yet to validate the quoted claim. There are claims to the contrary, as well, from Anthropic themselves.
The one I quoted, which contradicts Anthropic’s post and has no supporting evidence publicly available. That a jailbreak was found that accesses the model’s _raw_ capabilities. Something Anthropic has explained was not the case.
> A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public.
Pressure test this assumption before getting behind this position.
We should not stop _all_ of the both-sidesing, but we absolutely should stop _some_ of the both-sidesing. Both-sidesing done without both (a) critical thinking and (b) honest intent is simply whataboutism, one of the many forms of societal pollutant that we seem to have fully normalized.
Your second sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that needs to stop.
Your third sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that should not stop.
Your fourth is disappointing conclusion, a strawman to start ("demand immunity from criticism"...) and a false equivalence / faux symmetry as a bonus ("sets everything on fire" & "doesn't support progressive policies" are two sides of _which_ coin, exactly...?)
> We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump.
I agree - he clearly should have done much more than just threaten.
Out of curiosity, (a) did you receive this error at the start of a session or in the middle of it, and (b) did you manage to find/confirm valid findings within the scope/codebase 4.7 was auditing with Sonnet/yourself later on?
I just gave 4.7 a run over a codebase I have been heavily auditing with 4.6 the past few days. Things began soothly so I left it for 10-15 minutes. When I checked back in I saw it had died in the middle of investigating one of the paths I recommended exploring.
I was curious as to why the block occurred when my instructions and explicitly stated intent had not changed at all - I provided no further input after the first prompt. This would mean that its own reasoning output or tool call results triggered the filter. This is interesting, especially if you think of typical vuln research workflows and stages; it’s a lot of code review and tracing, things which likely look largely similar to normal engineering work, code reviews, etc. Things begin to get more explicitly “offensive” once you pick up on a viable angle or chain, and increase as you further validate and work the chain out, reaching maximum “offensiveness” as you write the final PoC, etc.
So, one would then have to wonder if the activity preceding the mid-session flagging only resulted in the flag because it finally found something seemingly viable and started shifting reasoning from generic-ish bug hunting to over exploitation.
So, I checked the preceding tool calls, and sure enough…
What a strange world we’re living in. Somebody should try making a joke AUP violation-based fuzzer, policy violations are the new segfaults…