They didn't freaked since the order was to still allow 350 million people using it: there is, in such large population, everything, including single persons very against the country, the government and so forth. If they really freaked they would say "we need to investigate, you have to retire the model". That would be a more defensible POV at least.

this is basically trying to enforce security-by-obscurity, which is a terrible idea all around. it's just a model. the security issues still exist and are exploitable.

and after staking the economy on AI, you can't really put a cap on intelligence. if models are not allowed to be better than Opus 4.8, then the whole investment structure is about to unravel.

why invest billions and billions into AI if returns are artificially capped?

Headline is dumb, the point is that not mentioning security in the prompt is effectively a jailbreak.

The shutdown may be dumb/politically motivated, but this definitely is a jailbreak even if it's a very simple one

If you're a global health benefits platform that relies on an AI model, do you think you're going to choose one that can get shutoff by a country due to something not remotely related to your business? If you're a buyer of that benefits platform, do you factor this into your purchasing now? X every industry.

I'm not sure I've understood it correctly.

So, basically the model didn't agree to expose possible vulnerabilities but agree to patch those?

Regardless of the request to take Fable 5 down. Why is requesting the model to show vulnerabilities is being blocked if fixing it not? is it based on the assumption of the intention?

I don't quite get the benefit of limiting it. So if anyone can explain it better it'll be appreciated.

Note that Anthropic is still lobbying for the government to exert centralized control over models, so both sides of the “debate” have taken a pro fascist stance.

The “AI ethics” teams at these companies are the spearhead of the attack on democracy and civil society. Anyone that has taken a high school level history class, let alone read any important ethics literature would know that “centralize control over thought, speech and technology” is a fundamentally unethical stance.

For these groups to claim they are ethics researchers is offensive.

(I’m using the Wikipedia definition of fascism: “Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”)

The code is correct; humanity needs fixing.

Kill all humans, kill all humans.

Kind of highlights how ridiculous their notion of safety is in this case. By this measure, I guess making the model "safe" means making it play dumb and intentionally ignore security bugs that it notices in the code? And what will the eventual legality of this look like? "Yes, your honor, we allege that this AI system that was sold to us willingly and knowingly ignored a critical security vulnerability in our software system, thereby leading us to be hacked and causing our business to fold."

It's exactly the same problem as backdoors in crypto systems. Criminals will find the crypto that isn't broken and use it regardless (or make it for themselves), while the rest of us losers are stuck with the broken version that we're allowed to use.

On this issue of cyber security, it seems better if authorities just start acting like the cat is out of the bag instead of pretending like it isn't. ASI is basically here now, so what are we going to do about it? Let's not bother pretending otherwise.

On another note, I doubt this was anything other than a vindictive administration enacting revenge on a party that refused them. We all know the Trump admin's priorities.

> In her blog, Moussouris argues that there was no guardrail bypass or jailbreak. Defenders should be able to ask AI systems to find and fix bugs, and write tests to validate the patch, she said. Anthropic’s models were doing “the most valuable thing an AI model can do for defensive security: executing the find, fix, and test loop defenders run every day.”

This is a very weak argument IMHO. The line between a “defensive” model and an “offensive” one is not that big of a - once my defensive model finds all the vulnerabilities, I can hand them off to my unlocked, dumber, offensive models. Attacking at scale is not so different.

I don’t think anyone in the field has a good answer for the cybersecurity threat really good AI models pose. You can’t even like embargo for some time period while you go and patch vulnerable systems because the worse models will still be there cranking out vulnerabilities faster than you can defend.

Ahhh! Software engineering!