> The jailbreak, if real, is still trivially executed and still allows using the full power of Fable 5/Mythos model.

Can you provide any evidence at all for that claim? It seems rather amazing that you have to caveat "if" it's real, but you can still confidently claim that it's both "trivial" and completely bypasses every safeguard to grant you the "full power" of Mythos.

Alternately, they may have been serve a gag order, which makes a lawsuit rather tricky.

Or perhaps they are, for once, trying not to aggravate the government further? It's not like there's a 24 hour expiration date on the legal route, nor does it tend to move very quickly.

The legal route is also rather more complicated since this is a national security issue, which means federal courts, which means judges that are a lot more friendly to Trump and still haven't resolved the previous / ongoing case of whether Anthropic is a "supply-chain risk to national security". So... presumably any legal action against this order is going to take even longer than the previous one?

It's wild to me how un-creative some people are on topics like this - do you really think you have magical psychic insight into politics that even the best reporters and journalists lack? Do you keep track of all the mistakes you've made? I bet this one makes the list within a week

> Anthropic made the claims, not me

> According to Anthropic, a jailbroken Fable 5 or Mythos is the apocalypse.

I'm pretty sure you're lying and they never said anything like that. They may have suggested it would be a bad outcome, but "apocalypse" is your own editorializing.

> literally end the whole-wide world overnight with a series of catastrophic, hypercane level cyberattacks.

I don't even know what level of spin this is on, but you're clearly not making the slightest bit of a commitment to the truth. And of course, if I ask for links, you'll send me something that makes no such claims, because it's all your own made up hyperbole. There is no way you can provide a link to a real Anthropic account where I can Ctrl+F that exact phrase and find it really is their own words.

Given that there's absolutely no way your claim is true, why even bother? What do you get out of this deception?

I just wanted to say I appreciate all your comments in this thread, and your patience in digging up specific citations

Are Catholics actually still doing that? My understanding is that the pope condemned it over a decade ago, major changes have been made, and while it was an institutional issue, it didn't go straight to the top.

Where do you draw the line? What companies are you boycotting due to their use of slave labor, etc.?

Obviously, when you've been personally affected, that's a pretty easy line. I've got my own list of personal boycotts for similar reasons - but I don't expect you to care, and I doubt your list includes many of those names.

I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church, I just dislike the idea that one cannot possibly support any organization which has, at some point, in some capacity, done something wrong. Pretty much every flag and religion has been used to justify atrocities. Mega-corps aren't doing much better. Buy local, abandon globalism, I guess? But then why are you on the internet?

Well, yes, we can say all sorts of things. I can say "phantomfive is not thinking, either".

I think you are perhaps putting too much stock in your ability to say things, and not enough stock in whether those things reflect reality - it's easy to say LLMs aren't thinking, but there's a remarkably narrow range of tasks they fail on these days, and you're moving the goalposts enough to exclude a number of humans at this point.

Ahh, yes, black people, yearning for the freedoms of slavery and segregation.

Or perhaps you were thinking of women, yearning for... oh, hey, it's the freedoms of slavery and segregation again.

Shall we liberate the gays from... oh yay, a new one: the tyranny of marriage!

Or to be more direct: I mostly notice it's white guys idealizing the past, because everyone else gets fucked over even a century back.

> For those reading along, this is were dmb reveals themselves as a troll.

Oh wow, they really are. That's some smooth shark indeed. And they just keep going, so I guess they're having fun with the absurdity. Been a while since I saw a genuine old fashioned troll - these days it's all psyops and agendas, but this is just... a very smooth shark.

Valgrus Thunderaxe, I assume you'd be happy to share which particular types of internet porn you prefer? You wouldn't mind if interested third parties published that, right?

Or do you expect privacy for yourself?

It would seem the issue there is "uploaded under real artists names", not whether it was AI generated.

It would also seem relatively easy to prohibit uploading a track labelled "Taylor Swift" unless it's from the official account, matches an official audio signature, or is clearly tagged as a cover?

> Student visa applicants, whom are by definition are not US citizens and not US residents, are not subject to ANY US rights

Ignoring the "residing outside of US" clause:

Non-citizens absolutely have rights under the constitution. That's settled ground. First source off Google is https://libertarianinstitute.o..., but I can find you a dozen others.

Can you concede that much, at least?

> residing outside of US

To be clear, that's a separate topic - I'm just asking about people who are actually in the US

I comment because I want to actually share and help people understand the topic. My goal is not to "win". I've used language wrong before, I've had people correct me, and I absolutely count those corrections as a "win" because I learned something useful, and "someone learns something useful" is my usual goal.

If you can't understand the difference between "okay, that was a bit sloppy, let me clarify" and "denying", you've definitely lost.

The "more" I am referring to is the specific word they used, so yes, context is implicit. I figured people would be smart enough to infer the "in this context" and lo and behold, you did :)