Don't forget their push for full regulatory capture in the name of "safety" as well so they can pull the ladder up behind them before anyone else has an equally capable model and releases it without the anti-competitive safeguards, while also pushing to completely ban open weight models, or any model trained on a certain level of compute without "rigorous" government testing and validation (which I'm sure, they'll conveniently provide the framework for).

Dampened opinion on Anthropic is an understatement.

They are the only ones I’ve contacted my bank to get a charge back on…

i wonder if some lawyer may see a consumer protection class action here. In my view the Stuxnet that Anthropic pulled on its customers isn't much different from say those unauthorized extra accounts by Wells Fargo.

exactly my thoughts as well when I got my money back.

"Why does a company that cares about the dangers of AI/ASI and x-risk, not want the PRC to catch up to the frontier?"

"It must be regulatory capture!" - HN.

-

Regarding the US-specific regulations - asking for domestic safety testing of frontier models only is not regulatory capture. It's common sense. Powerful things should be made safe before they are released into the wild.

> asking for domestic safety testing of frontier models only is not regulatory capture

It very much is regulatory capture. The goal is to make it so only the handful of heavily capitalized tech giants and frontier labs can afford the legal and compliance rigamarole to meet the new standards. It's an effort to crowd out open source development and smaller competitors (and foreign competitors which threaten whatever moat they may have). They define safety through some speculative catastrophic threat to prevent new upstarts instead of focusing on the very real, localized harm they are causing right now.

Its also shifting the definition of safety away from their current operations and toward purely speculative future scenarios.

What backward logic is this? PRC doesn't give a fuck about how US regulates AI companies. Pushing more regulation would ensure that Chinese companies catch up sooner. If you think otherwise you need to think harder.

The original topic was Anthropic's guardrails, which were meant in part to stop China from using Anthropic's models to bootstrap their own. I take it the logic of the comment was that pulling attention to Anthropic's stance on regulation is switching to the topic. But for what it's worth, I also think that people are way to quick to assume that strong regulations would only help China and thereby hurt safety. There are many reasons why the opposite may be true: - reducing demand for Chinese models reduces the incentive for Chinese companies to make them - if US companies can't use Chinese models, they won't have an incentive to help their development - China may enact similar regulations if the US leads, either out of concern for US safety or for commercial reasons

Also, I think some similar things can be said about AI safety measures in China aside from regulation. Currently, the US leads in model safeguards, but it isn't like China has zero interest in AI safety. Even if the US and China are rivals, there are many points of common interest (biorisk and "sci-fi" scenarios like an AI takeover, to name just two).

I don't subscribe to the belief that regulations in the US will lead to China advancing further.

But I also don't buy into the "China bad" narrative that gets frequently spread in online circles and in political circles. Its the cold war all over again, but this time its China instead of the Soviet Union.

Regardless of that, the regulations being proposed by Anthropic recently are not focused on the current issues which is my problem with all the hype marketing around hypothetical AGI/ASI. What is being proposed to be put in place will further cement the current frontier labs in their marketing leading position, and work to block new entrants, and open source competitors. That is the problem.

The other problem is none of them are talking about the real, difficult issues we are experiencing right now in the present. We don't need to talk about a sci-fi future scenario to recognize that LLMs have already caused and are causing harm in the real world. "We should probably regulate future frontier models" does nothing to help the current issues.

Wake me up when Anthropic says "The government should immediately stop us from hoovering up data and selling it back to the public. They should immediately stop us and others from enabling misinformation at scale that is already negatively effecting our democratic process. They should immediately stop us from building out new data centers until we have a large scale switch to renewables in the country, shore up the grids, or force us to generate our own power only with renewables" so on and so forth. Notice how any time the labs propose regulations, its only for a future hypothetical super intelligent model. Its never about their current operational liabilities.

It's a good thing you weren't in charge of nuclear arsenals during the Cold War, sounds like your approach would have been unchecked proliferation.

Fortunately developing frontier models takes immense amounts of specific resources and knowledge. There are only a handful of companies capable of developing new cutting edge models. This is an area a few governments absolutely could coordinate on and regulate, if they were so inclined.

Obviously the current US administration is completely lacking both the will and competence to actually negotiate an agreement like that with China, and who knows if Xi would even be interested. But with different leadership we actually could be reducing our existential risks in this area much more than we are. Just like having a few thousands nukes across several countries isn't totally safe, but it's a heck of a lot safer than hundreds of thousands of nukes spread across a hundred countries.

> It's a good thing you weren't in charge of nuclear arsenals during the Cold War

You know how many nukes Soviet had right at its peak? Hint: much more than the US by the time. Non proliferation didn't stop Soviet from building more nukes at all. And it's not going to stop China from pouring more computing power into AI. History is a really good lesson.

The whole point of non-proliferation is to ensure that big boys like the US and Soviet can bully smaller guys like Venezuela and Ukraine. In this regard, non-proliferation is the most successful foreign policy ever. But it didn't win the cold war and a similar policy over AI will definitely not win the AI race (if it's a race worth winning is another issue.)

> asking for domestic safety testing of frontier models only is not regulatory capture.

Yeah, asking for additional state-provided barriers to a market entry to a valuable market a provider already is one of a narrow few dominating only for firms that are a competitive threat is exactly regulatory capture.

Ohh, the red scare, never gets out of fashion. Meta's David Marcus in the Senate: If you don't let use launch crypto, the chinese will win.

The Chinese banned crypto instead

They're not even red any more. They're fully capitalist with dictatorship characteristics.

And why would any regulations put in place in the USA affect the PRC in anyway whatsoever? They wouldn't. China will continue to push forward and govern things in their own way, we have zero jurisdiction over China.

So yes, it is regulatory capture.

How does US regulatory capture do anything to impede PRC's advance?

Nothing, they are just trying to scare monger the public and prime the pump for a massive bailout when it crashes out because apparently China are the big bad meanies.

You'd be fine if the PRC gets to ASI first? That's an interesting opinion.

It has nothing to do with being "fine" if the PRC or anyone else for that matter get to some speculative and hypothetical ASI first. There are zero US regulations that would be effective to prevent that.

US regulations apply to US companies and citizens, exclusively. Anthropic crowding out all future potential competitors in the US via regulatory capture has no weight on what the rest of the world does.

Unless you are proposing military action over a speculative sci-fi future

PRC labs reportedly aren't even thinking about getting to ASI, much less trying. They think of AI as a technology that can provide utility across the board even without anything like superhuman smarts.

A lot of this lust for ASI is driven by America attempting to cling onto the power it has wielded over the world over the past 50 odd yrs.

It smells of paranoia.

Nope, they're accelerating towards superhuman smarts as fast as they can too.

Your loaded question presumes that "ASI" is anything more tangible than a useful marketing myth.

> You'd be fine if the PRC gets to ASI first?

How do rules that inhibit what AI can be sold on the US market (adding additional costs to trading in that market) do anything to inhibit a competing nation from reaching ASI first? Insofar as they inhibit anyone from reaching ASI, its firms whose primary commercial interest is selling AI services in the US market, not foreign threat actors except to the extent those two categories overlap.

Yes, why wouldn't I be? How is that worse than China getting it second?

No, because there is zero reason to think LLMs will lead to it but we do know that the massive LLM investment has a huge financial risk for the US. Not too mention it's exacerbating the climate crisis (you know the actual thing that might end civilization, not a fantasy delusion of AGI), giving citizens cancer that live next to data centers, the extreme decrease in quality of life, and the misallocation of capital while Americans lack healthcare, childcare, housing, and education.

Also don't believe China is actually a threat to the world. That's some cold war delusional think you got there.

All the companies seem to believe is that it's okay to immiserate a large percentage for the pursuit of money, you seem to believe the lies they're feeding you.

The flawed premise is thinking that AGI is a real risk, and that they care about it more than making money, that is why HN does think it's simply regulatory capture.

Right now the PRC is looking like the adult in the room. They also have a view of how AI should work that's smaller and more worker centric rather than trying to create superintelligent worker replacements.

The PRC (like any superpower) has done some bad shit, but if you're going to paint them as the bad guy keep in mind the USA has a long, long history of genocide, slavery, overthrowing foreign governments for corporate interests, unjust wars, political meddling, etc. The scales of righteousness don't tip in our favor TBH, we just have better PR and a nicer veneer over our brutality.

> Right now the PRC is looking like the adult in the room

Only if you ignore history.

Didn't the PRC violate every known labor/enviromnetal/human-rights standard to become the top in manufacturing?

https://matthewekahn.substack.com/p/what-role-did-regulation...

The US did the same thing. Environmentalist and workers rights movements date back to the 19th century. China's position on this is that the western nations that already developed are trying to pull the ladder they used up and wag a finger with false morality with the intent of maintaining global hegemony.

> The US did the same thing.

Except that there were no global standards at the time. You can't point to any single country and say they were doing worse. They all were bad.

But China actively flouted established international norms. Now that is behind in AI it is clamoring for controls for others.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3692695

> are trying to pull the ladder they used up

Every country spies and steals but it is the scale we are talking about. China does it at a scale that dwarfs any historical or current comparisons.

China doesn't have any grounds here when they turn around and complain about India copying its playbook:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/renewables/chi...

> Except that there were no global standards at the time

England had a patent system from the mid 15th Century which emigrants to the New World brazenly ignored in order to set up their own industry.

Of course, they then pulled the ladder up behind themselves in 1790 with the establishment of their own patent system...

I didn't downvote, but HN probably remembers when Anthropic's competitor was a "charity" that cared deeply about AI safety whose marketing gimmick was GPT-2 being too dangerous to release.

Anthropic's founder wants you to buy into his vision for safety, but he also wants you to buy into his vision that in two years AI will be a "country of geniuses" that will update itself, and the IPO that will fund it...

This take is ridiculous, the PRC is not going to care at all about US regulations.

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. It’s a business selling a product that isn’t yet profitable, not a public advocacy organization.

> "Why does a company that cares about the dangers of AI/ASI and x-risk, not want the PRC to catch up to the frontier?"

Because it’s a threat to ultracapitalist dystopia that they’re tripling down on. The dangers and risk are coming from inside the house.

The danger they care about is the danger to their monopoly, control, and wealth.

Yeah I'd say this has been a big concern ever since it turned out immensely expensive training methods could create effective frontier models. So far at least, open source models have kept up better than I expected, but they definitely lag the top ones and there's no guarantee the gap doesn't widen further.

Imagine the software world if Linux never existed as an effective OS and Microsoft + Apple had completely controlled computer platforms for the past decades. I think it's almost certain that both companies would be even more profitable, and the tech industry would be vastly less free and more dysfunctional .

Yeah, I cancelled my Claude subscription yesterday after learning about their attitude of intentionally sabotaging their paying customers.

Especially after trying Fable yesterday for some benign projects and being unimpressive relative to opus.

Rolling it back is the right move, but I’m still not convinced that using them is in my best interest anymore, I’m investigating open source cloud providers now.

Opus is nowhere close to Fable. Fable feels at least one generation ahead to me. https://x.com/hyperagentapp/status/2064396004032463157

Edit: OpenAI will launch a similar model soon and I can't wait. We are entering a new era of agents.

Models are spiky. In some narrow domains (cybersecurity, for instance) it will be a generation ahead. On the other hand a lot of people don't see a measurable difference between Opus ~4.5 and 4.6/7/8, because Anthropic taught it how to do some hard stuff better, but they didn't give it better taste or make it produce cleaner solutions to simpler problems.

Fable is very much an incremental development over Opus, and even more incremental when properly compared to its existing counterparts GPT-Pro and Gemini Deep Research.

ad

Care to share any specifics?

I have a design for a really complex software I want to build and there were gaps I knew of in the design. Opus couldn’t identify them but Fable did. I’m just talking about it reviewing the design, not coding. But yeah, it’s insanely expensive. It does spin off sub agents so I suspect it might be cheaper if you had it create a bunch of plan files and then pointed deepseek at this plan files or something like that

What does this even mean?

Can you write a more specific question? I think the meaning of the comment is clear enough, but maybe you’re asking for more specifics? Ironically I can not understand what you are asking for with such a generic comment.

> This is one awesome above a level.

> What does this even mean?

> What do you mean what does this mean?

...

I added a link.

Looking at the comment thread you linked, this kinda looks like harassment by you rather than anything "confirmed". You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on this user, who may just be a Claude enthusiast rather than a shill as such.

Corporation cannot help but act this way. They are too big. The pressures for profit are all that matters. That is the priority. It doesn't matter what colorful words they put on the paper to make you feel better. Look at the "green" movement 20 years ago. All talk and no action.

Stop supporting organizations that don't put humans first. Don't believe a word that anyone says. Lip service is free

"Only I can save us". It's a classic tragedy and cautionary tale.

The idea Anthropic was going to speed run AI so they could control the usage and make it "safe" for humanity was never altruistic; it was a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG.

You're right, they should just not even try and turn off all safeguards on frontier AI. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like a bunch of companies and nonprofits have said the model finds zero days at the press of a button!

Correct, they should. If there are zero days out there, then they should be able to be found by everybody, instead of only being found by the select elite that this model is available to. Though, I very much question the truth of said ability.

And? Now all the zero days, if thats true, get discovered and patched instead of being exclusively hoarded by the select few governments and Israeli spyware companies.

Sounds like a great thing to me.

Benevolent dictators work.

But, looking to a US corp to be one?

That’s daft.

They do, but only for specific definitions of "work". Like, benevolent dictators in Cuba 100% raised the literacy rate by an insane amount in just a few years (something like 20% => 80%").

If you define work as "literacy", they no doubt succeeded. But if you consider the people (and children) they tortured, raped, and murdered, suddenly literacy doesn't seem so important.

I meant in the context of a software project, for example.

And their huge "red lines"

Google has been doing the same thing for longer than Anthropic[0]. To protect their models from distillation attacks, they silently will downgrade the model's performance to essentially poison your training data without your knowledge.

A bit different than Anthropic refusing to assist with any AI development at all, but it's in the same vein and seems not widely known.

edit: reading the whole series of Google's AI Threat Tracker articles also provides some insight into threats Anthropic and others are dealing with

[0] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dis...

Thanks for flagging this. This is interesting

It's a 2 horse race, and google is not one of them right now.

First time? They've always been misanthropic, ironically. They seem to hate their users and think that their AI is so dangerous it'll destroy the world and not to be trusted, I mean Anthropic was literally started because people at OpenAI thought the latter was too forgiving on "safety."

Even with them making those guardrails visible, it's a bit ridiculous in my eyes. I have been experimenting with smaller models, will Claude assume I'm some Chinese or Russian agent trying to distill their secrets and bar me from learning? Because that's insane. What if I discover a more efficient way to build models with Claude? Well, we'll never know now. What if someone else entirely could discover a breakthrough in how we design and build LLMs.

The whole shtick is to get you addicted whilst reducing your ability to go without, acquire power over you, jack up the prices whilst manipulating the quality of the tokens/output available to you.

Cant believe how stupid people are. You couldnt see this coming? Shame on you.

I already made up my mind, I'm not using that model if its sending proprietary code over to Anthropic, they can kiss my rear. If every frontier model winds up doing this, I will stop using them. There's plenty of employers / jobs where this is not okay behavior from an LLM.

Yes, that is basically the plan. It's based on the belief that unfettered AI would let anyone be a supervillain and destroy the world. There are enough would-be supervillains out there, but they rarely get far because they can't get teams of smart people to build doomsday machines for them. So the AI has to not let anyone do evil with it.

Unfortunately, that won't feel very much like freedom.

It sounds like you might not agree with that belief.

While I don't agree with their actions here, I do think there's sufficient reason to hold that belief.

On some fronts (e.g. security, on which you've experienced more than me), I think there are surmountable challenges. But on other fronts (e.g. bio), a single errant actor could reasonably kill millions or billions of people with sufficiently powerful AI. We don't have good defenses here, and those actors do exist.

I still don't agree with these actions, but I do think I agree with their assumptions.

The model release cards for Opus have repeatedly and consistently stressed that the model doesn't have the fiddly know-how that's required to provide meaningful assistance in possibly dangerous subfields of biology. Mythos (Fable without the overly strict guardrails) has shown improvements in things like drug design, but even then the situation isn't really that different. This risk is ridiculously overblown, and the way to manage it sensibly is to introduce meaningful oversight for actors that seek to order the actual specialized materials involved (especially any synthetically generated genes/proteins/whatever).

No, Anthropic's model cards have claimed that the models don't show considerably more uplift than previous ASL-3 models, which already showed material uplift.

I participated in the internal bioweapons uplift test for Sonnet 3.7, and even then, one non-expert got huge uplift from the model [1]. I'd consider evals a lower bound of capabilities that can be elicited from a model.

The team behind Biomni, a biomedical agent that's widely used by researchers, has continued to find consistent gains between models [2]. I trust them, because I visited them to build their HPC tool [3], which the model is quite capable of using – moreso than most grad students. The Biomni team cares a lot about about real usability for real researchers, so they have a great pulse on capabilties.

SecureBio also has some public evals [4], which have continued to show increasing uplift.

And while synthesis monitoring is a part of the solution, I think you might underestimate how much goes under the radar. See the Reedley lab incident for an example [5].

Is Anthropic still effectively throttling beneficial biomedical research? Yes! And so is OpenAI. But the underlying capability is still actually dual use.

[1]: See page 25 in https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/9ff93dfa8f445c932415d335c88852...

[2]: Their benchmark has a preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.05.12.724604v1...

[3]: https://x.com/phylo_bio/article/2029233694775624096

[4]: https://securebio.org/

[5]: Search for "ebola" in the public report for the Reedley lab incident at https://chinaselectcommittee.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/se...

> No, Anthropic's model cards have claimed that the models don't show considerably more uplift than previous ASL-3 models, which already showed material uplift.

Doesn't this simply amount to disagreeing about what counts as "meaningful" from a bio-safety POV? Also, the ASL-3 deployment safeguards for Opus 4 and higher were always adopted as a matter of caution; it's not clear that even Anthropic believed at any point that this reflected any genuine "threshold crossing" event. So it's just not clear how much weight we're supposed to place on that particular stance.

In normal bio, there are standardized biosafety levels, because without it there would be no standard agreement on what "meaningful" safety is. So yes, I do think there's ambiguity here.

But I don't think I've found any domain expert who thinks granting everyone raw access to the most capable models wouldn't meaningfully increase risk. OpenAI recently staffed a biological threat modeler to help quantify this risk.

(Edit: just saw your edit, this includes at Anthropic. ASL tiers were "rule-out" to exclude rather than "rule-in", so exact thresholds were murkier, but I think it's clear that models have passed that threshold by now.)

That said, there are clear steps and requirements to set up a BSL-2 or BSL-3 lab, and I think there should be similarly clear rules around model capabilties and access. The process for Anthropic and OpenAI is murky and still implictly gated on spend, which I think is holding back research.

For example, anyone who has access to a BSL-3 lab should have a clear and low-cost path to a model with corresponding capabilities, as long as they set up corresponding precautions for model access.

I think it would be a bad outcome for only frontier labs and a select few groups they choose to have access to the most capable models – which is sadly the precedent that's currently being set.

> But I don't think I've found anyone who is a domain expert who thinks granting everyone access to raw modes wouldn't meaningfully increase risk.

It depends how capable these raw models are. Biology as a field depends most on real-world knowledge, which is an expensive capability for open models targeting widespread deployment. It's quite plausible that even Opus 4 would be a lot more capable in these domains than the best universally accessible "raw models" today, quite unlike other domains such as coding or pure math. The securebio.org benchmark has spotty representation of openly available models, but it does show Kimi 2.5 being no more capable than GPT 5 mini, and clearly below o4-mini and Opus 4.0; which may be a plausible summary of where things stand today.

That's a good clarification. I've updated my comment to the "most capable models" to refer to the most recent releases.

And sure, and I love open models – I spent much of the past couple months doing additional RL on Qwen 3.6 35B A3B, Gemma 4, Kimi K2.6, and GLM 5.1. Without these open models, I'd be forced to do my research inside a frontier lab.

There's a balance to strike here, but I don't think the biological risk is overplayed. It would be very easy to accidentally cross the threshold of "meaningful" without adequate safeguards, and then be unable to undo what you've released to the world.

>and those actors do exist

Do they? We don't even have single errant actors who go and kill 1000 people. I don't believe human motivations support the idea of killing so many people unrelated to you.

> If it was just plain monetary concerns and sabotage of competitors I'd almost be fine with it, but it seems they actively want to monopolize most of human progress in their enlightened hands

But that is “plain monetary concerns and sabotage of competitors”, they are just more ambitious than most people doing sabotage of competitors in the fields they hope to dominate by that tactic.

Wouldnt call their goverment disagreements performative, they genuinely believe they should be the only ones deciding what AI can and cannot do

Dario's life story arc in his head when he realized what ai can do. Capture this thing and become the king of the world.

That level of control will be fleeting at best; as soon as the open models and competitors catch up they lose that influence

That's why Dario's advocating for making open weight models illegal and also saying we should stop the clock on model development amongst the large labs.

>"but it seems they actively want to monopolize most of human progress in their enlightened hands, lest the mob does something undesirable with these powers"

I think this is exactly what they want.

Americans continuing to act shocked they're being cucked by corporations dampens trust and makes it difficult to buy into memes Americans are "exceptional" and "gritty", "educated", "world leaders".

Seriously the world is watching the American public get porked by grandpa and reconsidering putting their trust in not just US government as that's clearly failed, but the people themselves.

Occasional weekend warrior protest while our government destabilizes their lives? That's all the effort ya got for global allies and partners, eh?

And we subsidize them (AI companies in general) with our tax dollars.

But, to be fair, we subsidize all of corporate America, not just AI companies.

Wait until you see the enshittification phase.

how did you read it this way? Distill is such a big problem that distill attempts consist a significant share of their revenue(!).

A distill model with easy jailbreak can easily be used to coordinate terrorist attacks, or hostile government attacks. Read russia, north korea etc.

A distilled model can be used to rob your grandma in a very effective way. It's no longer about placing a few business logic requirements in js + css on your website. wake up .

Same. I'm not sure I can trust them again. I'm investigating open weight models.

Someone on here once point out that their CTO worked at Oracle and I haven't been able to forget that since.