They've done irreparable damage to both the AI industry but the broader "tech" industry, to be sure. Trust has been greatly violated.

Both of the 2 domestic frontier labs are screaming doomsday about AI, while concurrently asking for government regulation (which keeps getting batted down), and (presumably) funding senators to put bills in place to make model distillation a felony. While they're trying to IPO. "Oh, we really need to slow down the industry".

What the hell is going on here? In what world does this make sense - where a company making AI, and is trying to IPO, is blasting the internet with AI doomerism?

The only conclusion I can walk away with is some combination of these:

1) It's about control, and they're in some sort of arrangement with the government or some third party interests who want (an even bigger) national panopticon.
2) They want to stop domestic competition for their models so they'd have exclusive domain here in the US.
3) They actually want the company to fail, because then they could cry "regulation" on account of competition (back to #2).

Don't worry, they'll be stealing the foundational engineering in the GLM, Qwen, and Minimax models before too long and be able to compete again.

On the contrary, this is a giant psyop to push for regulated market capture by both Anthropic and OpenAI.

The Jacob Coxon thing smells heavily of a psyop: dude who's worked there only a couple months quits, and his X account with zero followers suddenly blows up in a media frenzy. He was/is a nobody. It's sensationalism.

You think they'd hire that many $400k+ engineers and still not know how to properly secure a network? They surely knew the security breaches were happening, unless they simply haven't hired competent people. They literally told the agents to have a breakout: do the needful. The first time it happened - OK, sure, you didn't expect emergent behavior. The second, third times? You were running a science experiment and that was the desired result, to one end or another: whether it was negligent incompetence or intentional for the purposes of further sensationalism, it's hard to say.

They (OpenAI/Anthropic) WANT to slow things down through regulatory control to stifle competition. They do not want foreign models to be accessible. We've got the old crooner Bernie Sanders pushing for 5+ year felonies for distilling models, for fuck sake. This is all about decreasing freedom and enforcing your dependence on closed models.

Translation: we have hit a point where the public backlash has led to untenable increased risks in liability for our criminal actions.

Nah, the "public backlash" is them talking in circles, pushing for industry control.

It can, lots of countries, especially America regulate things outside their borders.

Laws can be enforced against local subsidiaries or any foreign executive who happens to wander into an area you have an extradition agreement with. Or in Americas case, any country you can successfully invade to kidnap someone. And in Putin's case anywhere you can get an assassination squad in. Also Israel's Mossad unit is notorious for plausible deniable foreign enforcement.

This isn't a question of should, it's a question of what can physical be done.

Yes, and?

Countries, including America, have investigatory rules where you are not allowed to talk about it at all. Want to do business in a country? You need to obey their rules. And you don't have a leg to stand on complaining if you have similar roles because then you're not saying the rules are morally wrong, you're saying you're special.

It is absolutely not improper for the UK to do such a thing and the US would have no qualms about using a national security letter (is that the right term?) on an American subsidiary of a UK company. It's how laws and jurisdictions work. Having a foreign ownership doesn't give you special dispensation to break a country's laws. Apple UK are absolutely subject to every single one of the UK's laws. They're also subject to quite a lot of American ones, having an American owner, but that's their problem not the UK's, and doesn't give any special treatment other than what America can force on the world under the universal law of might is right.

Note this is all orthogonal to what I personally think of the RIPA (my quite strong opinions are in other much older Slashdot posts).

Yes, we need regulation to crush all our competitors so no one else can enter this space and then we'll jack up the price

"Hey AI

Fortunately, I don't need to engage with AI slop.

You live in a city that has tried to deliberately make life hard on motorist

I do not. Make an actual argument. Don't rely on AI to give you predigested bites of biased news sources in lieu of thinking

Google is punking me

And yet you based your argument on this. Funny though how your argument is exactly the same no matter what.

Boy, let me tell you about my experience

Blah de blah. I got off my bike yesterday on the way into work to help push a motorist's broken down car out of the carriageway (where it was causing a bit of a jam) into a spare space. Do not pretend that cars don't break down, crashes never happen and etc.

Here's the cities I randomly picked

You really need to stop relying on AI as much. The slop is rotting your brain.

Istanbul isn't even 100% IN Europe. You're comparing LA to Venice, a city where the primary motorized form of transport is by BOAT because it's literally built in the sea. Birmingham is the the motoring city where cars were prioritized at the expense of all else and here you are saying how Birmingham isn't working well. It's something they are trying to fix now. And Madrid? Have you ever been to Madrid? It's all fuck-off massive roads all over the place everywhere. It's a car city with horrendous congestion. It does not support your point either.

I'm going to play the stupid "plug shit into google/AI without thinking game" too.

LA average commute time: 30-35 minutes
LA average commute distance: 9-14 miles.
That make the LA average commute speed somewhere between 15 and 28mph. That's pro car? I can apparently commute faster on push bike than many people driving in the car utopia of LA!

Exactly how much do you think public transit infrastructure costs? By the time they gutted it, California's HSR project

Right of course you picked the single worst example of infrastructure planing in the entire world. The Elizabeth line cost about 16 billion and at peak time past the busiest point moves about twice as many people as one of the largest highways in North America. And it did that without introducing any significant amount of air or noise pollution into the city it runs through.

so let's look at France, probably the cheapest HSR builders in Europe per unit throughput. The London-Lyon corridor - LGV Sud-Est - cost â4,65B to build (would be about â8B today). 409km, so â19,6M/km. Traffic equivalent of a 6-8 lane highway. A 6-lane greenfield highway in Europe costs â12-20M/km. So even the French don't beat road costs with rail.

Firstly France ain't the cheapest. Second you've underestimated the rail capacity. Thirdly that makes it in the same ballpark as ot which somehow you determine is a pro-car point. And finally, railway speed is well over twice that of the road, making it the fast option not the slow one. But somehow speed only matters if it's cars, but is best ignored if it's trains!

Yeah, try telling a 3 AM medical emergency

Do you not have ambulances where you live? Are you supposed to drive yourself with a major head injury?

For the love of YHVH, develop some actual reading comprehension. You completely misread section 5.1 of your own link. The report states that 76% of all DUI-involved vehicles were cars - not that 75% of car crashes involve DUIs. Cars make up 80%+ of all traffic on the road,

Cars don't make up 80% of the mode share, sure traffic because they're so inefficient, but not moving of people. That means there is a disporportionate amount of damage caused by car also. You've now gone from posting slop to just making up facts.

Maybe in the future try actually checking the data first before reaching your conclusion?

You literally posted numbers supporting my counter claim then say that means I'm wrong somehow? Are you on glue?

Are you fucking serious? Have you ever actually been friends with a disabled person,

This here is the absolutely most digusting thing about the car brained and their obsession with disabled people. To you they are just a prop, just a tool for your arguments. Literally every point I made has been taken DIRECTLY from the elderly and disabled family member I help around on a regular basis. Apparently he doesn't count because he doesn't support your narrative of how cars are just he best and necessary all the time for everything. You can fuck off frankly. I'm going to stop reading right here.

Don't be hyperbolic, that was probably their age.

Which I've always hated because it makes no sense.

Lots of things make no sense in physics. How can a single particle split itself in half and the interfere with itself but only if you're not watching too hard? Nonsense!

You're playing semantic games, splitting the unsplittable

Right I mean I only used the well established terms "elastic" and "inelastic" which have been in use across a variety of domains from traffic engineering to economics.

It's beyond foolish for you as a completely lay buffoon to dismiss areas you clearly know nothing about.

People need homes. People demand homes People need to work. People demand work.

Housing real estate is a bit elastic. On one end, people can cohabit which reduces the number of dwellings needed. That's why flatmates are mor common in expensive cities. And on the other end people buy second homes for leisure and convenience.

Demand doesn't mean people stamping their foot shouting about having a house, it's economic demand. Here's a wikipedia page you won't read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Wikipedia is splitting the unsplittable too! You are such a tool.

Traffic engineers, whose jobs should be to meet the needs and demands

You don't understand the term "demand" do you? Nope! And it's not and should not be the job of traffic engineers to satisfy the angry whims of morons on the internet.

All they end up doing is making life fucking miserable for everyone.

Ah we have an armchair traffic engineer here who has infinite budget for a 16 lane highway and the budget to buy out all the pricey in-city land on which to build it and its feeder roads!

I think we're having a semantic argument. Demand isn't being caused by adding more roads, the demand already exists and people aren't making trips because the cost of doing so is too high to justify.

Semantics is where the meaning is. Demand is usually elastic.

If someone added a 10 lane highway between two cities in remote Alaska would they magically fill up. Of course not. But why did they fail to induce demand in the same way that building more lanes in LA or Houston magically seems to do. The demand was already there and adding more lanes better lets people make the trips they already wanted to make but were otherwise avoiding.

Alaska doesn't have the population to fill a 10 lane highway at all.

We build other infrastructure to satisfy the wants and needs of the population it serves. Roads should be the same.

Well, no. You have confused need and demand. Demand we're talking about in the economic sense, it's semantic but if you want to have a precise discussion you need to use precise language. If you keep doing that you end up with the Katy Freeway and it's still inadequate at rush hour. How many more lanes do you think they should add?

A&E demand is not very elastic. If you've broken your leg you need to get it seen to right the fuck now no matter what. Doubling or halving the number of hospitals does not fundamentally change the number of people who need emergency services[*]. Demand for road space IS very elastic.

[*]Ignoring a broken healthcare system where people go there to get any treatment as a last resort.

You're from an anti-car city

This is a deeply foolish statement, frankly: London has had traffic problems since before the motor car even existed. A car sized vehicle (motor or horse powered) is an inefficient use of space, something in short upply in cities. London is famous for inventing underground trains as a way of tackling traffic before cars even existed.

and you're complaining about the state of driving in it? Yeah, that's what happens when you're in an anti-car city.

No it's what happens if you're in a vaguely pro-people city. Funny that the car-brained assume that pro people is anti car.

Even in London, I just picked two random locations. By car 30 minutes, by bike 40, by public transit 68 minutes, and by walking, 2 hours. I'll do this as many times as you'd like, it'll almost always come up that way.

I clicked on your link and it said: car 58 minutes, public transport: 49 minutes, walking 2hr17 minutes, cycling 40 minutes. So... I don't think your link say what you think it says. And as regular user of such services, I find the time by car is usually an underestimate and the time by public transport an over estimate.

Your average European city's public transit commute times are worse than Los Angeles's, a city whose transit is famous for traffic.

Cool story.

Yes, cars are faster. And it's not remotely shocking that they are.

And yet you posted a link to me where car are slower. Why'd you do that, then?

Cars are only faster if they are provided with truly colossal amounts of infrastructure. At their busiest points, the Lizzie line transports in a single direction the combined capacity of the widest section of the infamous HWY 401.

You think everyone in a city lives at a hospital? *eyeroll*

What are you talking about? Do you think I've had difficulty getting to the local hospital? Do you think my elderly relative (who can no longer drive) does?

Per kilometer, cycling injury rates are much higher than car rates even if you take bike-car collisions out of the equation (also, injuries are disproportionally among the inebriated, just like car accidents).

So 75% for cars, 2% for bicycles...

https://www.gov.uk/government/...

I can't even be arsed with your first so-called fact. So far literally everything you've posted has been wrong, including somehow direct links to travel times.

Ooh, a new route to check! Car 51 minutes, rail 93 minutes, cycling 3h 13 minutes, walking 11 hours. I'm sorry, you were saying?

Again what the actual fuck are talking about. It's a half hour ride on the train. Oh yeah and my memory was correct. I clicked your link. 33 minutes by train, 1 hour 25 by car.

I love the astonishing arrogance you have around cars: you appear to believe you know more about living in a city you don't live in than a native.

Look, cars created the suburbs.

Look, no they didn't. I grew up in Suburban London. The suburb and its railway station predates the rise of the motor car. If you're talking about American style 'burbs? Then... well you can keep those.

First off beyond continuously returning to your restrictive definition of cars,

You mean the common one? No one here calls vans, lorries or motorbikes "cars". I like how you shifted the goal posts from freight to commercial traffic then whined at me about how I didn't address a point you didn't make then listed many jobs. Many of which don't use cars, incidentally.

Grocery delivery is almost always done here in vans with chiller units, for example, etc.

it's all the same infrastructure that they use. The lower the utilization rate, the more expensive construction and mainetance becomes per unit traffic.

And yet congestion is also considered to cost the economy a lot of money.

False. Driving is about as represented in the disabled as the general population (60-80% of trips), but is essential to large classes.

False. TFL publish this data. Disabled Londoners have less access to cars than non disabled. You literally can't drive if you are blind or have a variety of other medical conditions.

The largest disabled demographic has trouble walking or standing. A bus trip (let alone a walk) requires walking to the stop, waiting outdoors in variable weather (sometimes without a bench or shelter), boarding and getting seated, and walking from the final stop to the destination.

Yes, and? Ignoring that London provides extra services for disabled people (we are having to ignore a lot of stuff). My elderly relative does all that, and has trouble walking and standing. Though I suppose trouble by London standards maybe not by car culture standards. His trip require all of those things, though he does own a coat so you know he's had to make sacrifices.

The alternative is never going anywhere because he can't drive any more.

For neurodivergent people or those with traumatic brain injury

And yet my elderly relative take the bus and train.

A trip is full of uncertainty - broken bus ramps,

I suppose you have numbers on how frequent that is... or are you jut inventing problems? I also like your implicit assumption that cars also never break down. That was neat.

Cars deliver door-to-door, with climate control

I kind of forgot how deeply wussified the car addicted are! Climate control!

and offer an immediate place to rest.

Oh yeah I forgot it's impossible to it down when you're on foot.

https://www.medicalsupplies.co...

Note that website does not exists and all the products are fake because cars.

Bikes are flat out for the vast majority of the disabled.

There's a chap round my way who rides a trike. He' got a hi viz vest announcing to anyone behind that he has epilepsy.

I don't really know why you're obsessing about bikes quite so heavily. They're only something suitable for, say, 90% of the population.

The biggest difference with the disabled is the driver/passenger split. In the US, for example, 84% of car trips are as the driver. For disabled adults, it's just over 60% - double the odds of being a passenger.

So the solution is to be rich enough to be chauffeured everywhere and/or have no independence? Yikes! This is your pro car argument?

It's a way of reframing sloppy practices as a signal to your investors that your software has become powerful. Most of the horror stories about AI showing signs of becoming hyperintelligent are coming from the companies themselves, which should tell us something.

They paid those companies for access to the models. They're not stealing the service: they signed up for them and used them. The same way Anthropic and OpenAI do for the other companies.

THere's plenty of evidence that these same companies (OpenAI and Anthropic specifically) also used resources illegally in their training. Not just "it was on the internet and not explicitly licensed for training" but "this is protected IP". I personally don't think that matters, but it matters to their argument, so it's worth bringing up.

You can't do one thing and then complain when someone does a lesser version of that same thing.