Hacker News

My bet is working through an abstraction layer (LLMs) will make crafting a fun game more difficult. The art of designing a (great) game is in the details. English is not sufficient to communicate the individual strokes of a brush on canvas.

Also, thank you for sharing your experience. I recently joined that subreddit just to see what people are creating and I too have been unimpressed.

Strong AI enthusiasm like on there and poor taste tend to correlate pretty strongly. I'm sure there are lots of developers using LLMs to assist with the boring work of coding and keeping mostly quiet about it, still keeping it on a short lead & doing the more creative parts themselves. There have always been indie developers who hate coding and see it as just a necessary step to get their idea out the door, and they still make good games. All the dialogue in Undertale is implemented in a giant 5k+LOC switch statement.

most flash games were horrible too! You had to go through a load of crap to find games like boxhead, motherload, or bloons. I'm a big believer in volume here. You don't have to be an amazing programmer to be an amazing game designer, but before, the former was a prerequisite for even getting started. The beauty of AI tools applied to games is that you can just focus on the latter. Over time the gems will rise to the top

Game design is hard. Back in the day I released 4 flash games. 2 completely tanked, 1 did ok, and one went quite well (hundreds of years total time spent in game).

There's a lot to getting it right, and like all software, you have to built it for your target market. There's no easy AI solution to getting a fun and engaging core loop. Nor is there one for building the right level of complexity and balancing the learning curve.

I think a lot of people who can't/don't code see themselves as game designers and had thought that AI would let them make games, and are now finding it wasn't really about the code after all. That, and if you can't code, vibe coding alone isn't really good enough for much beyond flash-level games (yet).

Indie dev here. Making games is hard it is one of the few spots in software where all disciples have to come together to make something compelling.

I've done a lot of programming on various sub sections of the disciple and it still remains to me the hardest one to crack for AI.

It's undoubtedly am incredible tool for accelerating output but I think it's going to be the hardest for ai to commoditize as a whole.

Built a custom tower defense type clone for a client maybe 10 years ago… Coding it up in Objective C & Cocos2d was fairly straightforward. Probably spent 50% of the dev time taking in feedback, balancing the values on everything, progression of items, etc. what i’m saying is the functioning game logic (code) was really only one part of it.

The next Jonathan Blow is going to be massively empowered by their tools and make something wonderful. Having fewer people involved can lead to a more focused execution of their vision - most amazing indie games are like this. But yes your average game isn’t bad because it’s hard to write C#, it’s bad because it’s hard to design great unique mechanics and levels, and it’s hard to see AI helping (indeed not harming) that.

It is like writing novels: it is not the spelling or typing on the keyboard that is the bottleneck.

It is always the creative world building part.

The main criticism of the Harry Potter books are not spelling or sentence structure, it is the plot holes and contradictions in the world build.

The same holds for software.

Speaking of game explorations/ideas enabled by LLMs, here is a 'craft anything' sandbox I'm trying to turn into a game: https://asciidia.com

I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. These are cute little interactive demos, not games. It has made me appreciate real game design much more.

Its because the people that are eager to develop with llms are talent-less and have no brain muscle of their own left, they're letting the connections between nuerons atrophy with every prompt they send (literally)[0].

[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

I ran into this wall too. Someone here on HN said their general test is “make a browser only simple rts game with no AI and no multiplayer” What makes a game fun is very different than the engine of a game. My kid asked me to make a game where you brew potions. Okay, done. Adding ingredients, having physics to drop the items rather than “okay they just appear in the pot” (or worse it just says “okay they’re in there!”) Especially for kids there’s a physicality you have to capture to make it both fun and understandable to a seven year old.

Getting cutesie stylized 3D models is something that’s trivial with an RTX 5090, a ChatGPT pro subscription (unlimited image generation), you run Trellis2 plus a few other open source things in a pipeline that your agents can queue and it’s astonishing how much cool stuff comes out the other side. But the graphics don’t make the game fun at all, they’re just set dressing for the fun.

There’s been a lot of learning going from 0. “Okay, 3D model of a character. Oh, this model is useless since it isn’t in a T Pose I can’t rig it. What’s a rig? Okay, there’s a rigging ML model. Download that. Okay, how do I animate it? Oh, cool there’s a model for that. Oh wait my model has holes in it, that looks weird. Okay there’s an ultra shapes library that helps improve geometry. Whoops, that strips all the textures and shaders. Okay, trellis2 has a mode that takes an existing model and retextures it. Okay wow these look good, the characters are walking around! This goblin is break dancing! Okay uhh, what do you actually do in this game?”

Like it feels like that trap you can get stuck in when one part of something is trivially easy, so I have like 500 random 3D assets that are honestly pretty good looking for a game where the core gameplay loop is not developed at all because I have no idea what would make it feel fun. Because I can prompt and say “oh wouldn’t a Christmas village be cool?” And I wake up the next morning with 50 3D models of Christmas village stuff and characters and I say “wow, neat!” (It takes maybe 8 minutes end to end for the pipeline to generate one 3D model, so I just run it overnight). But then I have to manually place them in the world (if you let the AI do it in unreal engine 5 it places them via coordinates which become impossible to move inside the unreal editor).

The fun part is “wow, this is something I’m making with my kids, and it’s unique to us”. That’s what keeps me at it. I’ve never seen my kid so engrossed and excited to help me with something, she’s the one coming up with ideas and saying “what if we did this and that?” and then seeing those things become real is really neat. The bottleneck is there’s a dozen agents that can work on different parts of the game but it’s a chaotic mess.

Still, I’d imagine this is how people learn is by making something that’s a piece of junk then making something that’s better. I don’t plan on releasing my pieces of junk unless I feel like they’re actually fun.

>> And there are so many quality indie games you could get for the 25+ dollars you'd spend generating the code.

But those games have already been designed a specific way, based on the developer's ideas and imagination and vision.

If you're the sort of person who always thinks along the lines of "I wish there was a way to upgrade spells" or "it would be great if you could open this door and see what is behind it" or "I hate the way orcs and goblins are friends, they should actually fight each other"

That has always been the issue with games: they capture the imagination... and then stop there. There's no way to expand them the way you want (except for submitting requests/wishes to the devs and hope they listen and add it in a short enough time period) and customization options are always very limited.

AI, on the other hand, empowers everyone to bring their own ideas to life. Sure, those ideas may not be great, or the execution may not be great, but at the end of the day it's a way to express one's imagination that would otherwise take years to do.

Maybe because Dario was actually reasoning through potential risks, rather than blindly thinking everything will be okay?

I said this in the other thread, but they were proven right about their gpt2 worries, weren't they?

From the original 2019 release:

> We can also imagine the application of these models for malicious purposes , including the following (or other applications we can’t yet anticipate):

    Generate misleading news articles
    Impersonate others online
    Automate the production of abusive or faked content to post on social media
    Automate the production of spam/phishing content

These worries are why they stated they were cautious in rolling it out

https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/

To be fair, generative AI is wrecking society in new and unexpected ways every week. From lies and misinformation to people choosing chatbots over therapy and relationships, there's a profound impact on society that will only get worse in the coming years. The look for junior programmers who are capable enough to get anything done when the AI is down has been depressing, and things are looking much worse for the years to come.

Important safety features ("do not generate child porn", "statements should be factual or backed by evidence") were simply not part of the design of these systems and have yet to truly solved to this day, but AI companies decided to release these technologies onto the general public regardless of their glaring flaws.

I like AI for its shitposting capabilities and its neat parlour tricks, but I also believe so far it has been a net negative for everyone but the richest minority of society who benefits from firing people and having computers do half their jobs badly. It's too late now, but in hindsight I do agree that these systems were too dangerous to release in this shape.

Dario's brain child

This is very reminiscent of the NSA's attempt to limit crypto access of websites in the 90s. We were very close to having the U.S. ban SSL right when it was becoming the clear solution for safe open web transfers for payments.

I assume only the weight of economic pressure and lack of alternatives (and plenty of opposition) kept the doors open, but the same "national interest and security" BS was trotted out then, too.

Big difference this time is nobody needs Fable/Mythos to accomplish anything. There is no magic line here, only improved connective work with less intervention. But it stands to reason that this will cause a huge chilling effect on AI development in the U.S. if it stands and other labs will eventually bypass Fable/Mythos in capability.

To use a car analogy, the models are being built like engine improvements, sometimes going from V6 to V8, but other orgs might improve the car's wind resistance or fuel injection, which leads to a similar speed improvements. There is a lot of space for improvements all along the chain which is why this is such a pointless move.

Knowing this administration (and Anthropic's ham-fisted tactics) this ends in a week or less with some sort of "deal" and was all part of some high stakes negotiation. Possibly even beneficial to Anthropic, because where does it leave OpenAI once they settle on some sweetheart deal? The precedent is set.

Lots of people on HN, and lots of chronic forum users, think that being skeptical/bitter/cynical makes them sound smarter.

Most nerds (like myself) outgrew this edgy mentality in highschool/college. Realistically this mentality just makes it impossible to see anything except through the darkest possible lens.

This take feels a little like the clergy saying printing presses are dangerous because people will read bad things and spread bad ideas. Turns out they totalky did, but on net it's a small price to pay for widespread literacy.

I fully agree and this other side of excessive scepticism people are ruining it for everyone else. They are a big distraction. They keep saying things like:

- Anthropic is just doing this for marketing stunt

- AI is like NFT's

- circular deals

- the bubble will burst anytime soon

- the hype bro's are propping up the stock market so that they can exit quick like grifters

(I just made the last one up to force terminology they use)

This is really distracting because the main problem here is that AI is getting too powerful to be just handed out to normal people like us. If you still believe it is all hype, you are getting distracted from the real problem.

I'm guessing at some point this kind of rhetoric will die away and we focus on real problem

This is so true, if anyone posts any positive aspect of AI, those comments are downvoted to abyss. As a software developer I understand how others sees AI as a threat to their job safety and saying AI is evil and must be stopped is so selfish when AI truly can lift millions out of abject poverty in the future.

What’s so funny is that same people are the ones that identify themselves as liberals as long as they can keep their privileged, highly paid jobs.

Most of the people on HN thinking this stuff is garbage won't be working in tech in five years.

There simply won't be jobs for them.

The risk is that all of these very incredibly smart and disgruntled people decide to do something about it. Elite overproduction, but instead as a result of enormous shift in supply side economics.

> 'Security' is clearly a pretense, as otherwise the demand would not have been restricted to 'foreign nationals'.

Given everything else this administration has done, you now decide to accept their stated intentions at face value?

A requirement of digital sovereignty is the ability to build competitive digital companies. It seems unlikely to me at this point that the EU is going to turn that ship around.

This is the first impression I got, a glass ceiling on AI that will hit the market hard. Timing was right at the late Friday's let's-avoid-the-crash point, we'll see how this flies on Monday.

But it's also, as sibling comments mentioned, a bend-the-knee between Government and Anthropic. Once OpenAI catches up, and Anthropic lawyers-up as well, it will probably be reversed or morphed into a "models must have the US seal of AI-approval and, therefore and hereafter, we AI-approve the new US-verified Fable 5.1" - which will coincide with a at-large deployment at the DoD, Pentagon, and friends.

Otherwise the Chinese will catch-up and, heavens forbid!

And what if the US government does the same for Opus or other models? No model is safe from being banned that way

For American AI models better than Opus 4.8.

The much-decried EU AI Act provides a safe, predictable regulatory framework to base ones AI development on. It provides legal stability compared to unpredictable arbitrary decisions by the US executive.

If AI companies have any sort of sense in them, they'd be well-advised to consider relocating to Europe.

Welcome to Hacker News

>I've really come around to trusting OpenAI a lot more than Anthropic

Pretty wild statement given the "Pathological liar" chat around the OAI leader

You didn't even need to read between the lines, that was basically what the CEO stated point blank in interviews and in his writing.

(I noted the same thing a few weeks back, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48341224 but his recent blogposts should make it crystal clear if there was any lingering doubt).

> If a volatile administration can ban you from running code that you wrote -- without any democratic processes like a law or lawsuit -- why would you build anything in the US?

That's not what's going on. But, what's going on has always been possible. Even to this day, there's software that's is subject to export controls. There's also an often-changing list of countries that US-based companies are prohibited from doing any business with. For software, this has been going on since the 1990s. "Weirdly", the US-based software business has been doing really well.

Anthropic was instructed to prevent Foreign Nationals from using a subset of their software. Anthropic chose to prevent everyone from using that subset of their software.

Anthropic had other options. One of those options was to gate access to the software behind the ID, biometrics, and -if present- passport capture that Big Tech seems to be very excited to do. I expect that -if they end up changing anything at all about access control- we'll see them doing something very similar to that in the coming weeks.

We're truly lost when we can't see that there is such a thing as good government and bad government. That there is a difference between corruption and modern liberal regulation that follows fair rules. That we can't see that it's ok to regulate CFCs to prevent ozone catastrophe, and not ok to use back room deals to pick favorites. It's not about sides or teams, but there is still right and wrong even in the administration of nation states. And we fluctuate along a gradient with our governments, sometimes its better, sometimes its worse, never perfect, but sometimes much better.

We should demand and work towards good public institutions that do their job. It's perfectly consistent to say "this is a job that legitimate democratic institutions should perform" and complain that currently the legitimacy of institutions is undermined.

Let's take your argument to it's extreme point: The state should never regulate anything because the state might be bad!

This is structurally the same fallacy as "people shouldn't be allowed to do anything, because some people are bad!".

I think it should be noted that the current government, which did this silly thing, belongs to a party that is pretty much advertising on wanting to be a smaller government that gets involved less. That is a large part of why people vote for them.

Reductionist "if only the government didn't get involved" doesn't work unless you presume no government is beneficial (it is not since you just recreate all the bad parts of government anyway)

You can be critical of the policy of export controls and the meaning of them in modern day but saying it is a problem with the government in general is nonsensical.

I agree. This situation was created in the first place because both parties and their constituents have been OK giving the executive branch more and more power as long as it benefits “their team”.

This government is corrupt to the core, with individuals in it wanting a piece of the pie for themselves. Anthropic wouldn't share, hence the reprecussions.

It is an extreme edge case and the argument for a sane government oversight is still perfectly valid. No oversight makes corporations dump waste into the water supply and market asbestos-lined cigarettes. It's naive to think that no oversight is needed.

I’m pretty certain that most of my issues are with a specific kind of government, not with government in general.

Government is fine if it’s done by people that aren’t in it only for themselves. Actually it is often still fine if it’s done by people only in it for themselves. It’s just that the people in it right now will burn the world down to enrich themselves.

This. There really is no such thing as an entirely good government. Government is composed of people. From politicians to clerks, it's people all the way down. Some people are good, most are just trying to get through the day, and some are evil. Seriously: in any government, some of the bureaucrats and politicians will be corrupt or power hungry or sadistic or whatever.

When you give a government power, there are people in place who can and will abuse that power. If not now, then next year, or in five years. After all, power granted to the government rarely goes away.

This is the reason that you should always consider the worst case, when governments gain power. The power to ban a specific technology? What could go wrong? How could that be abused? Let me count the ways...

Mmm. Same argument for any seat of power though.

“It’s not always going to be the (oligo|mono)polistic corporation you personally wanted” either.

So we invent democracy, term limits, anti-trust, branches of government, environmental safety regulations, the SEC etc. etc.

Whether in the public or private sphere we have created social technologies to make power more diffuse and constrained, and corruption and misalignment less likely (never impossible).

One feature of the last decade is the steady erosion of these safety rails.

But in democracy you do get to say which government you want.

It’s actually ok to be more critical of a government that’s capricious than one that merely advances polices one disagrees with

Of course the tired follow-up: “But if the government was functioning properly it would only do the things I want”.

Right - this government has it's own problems, and Trump is of course entirely transactional so will be looking for something in return for rescinding this order (as he of course will).

But of course Anthropic has been lobbying hard for this, for government regulation, and finally they've (at least temporarily) got what they want. Maybe they are actually happy with the outcome, who knows. They get to IPO and all get rich, they get to sell current level models, and future development gets heavily regulated.

It was always going to happen anyway - just a matter of time. At some point (whether that is today is beside the point) AI/AGI will become powerful enough to have national security implications and of course the government is going to regulate who can have access or not, put in place export controls, require clearance for developers, etc.

I agree with the point, but I think it's fair to acknowledge that the current US government is not a "normal" one in any sense.

That’s a strange argument. If my postman shits in my letterbox, is that proof that the whole concept of postmen is a bad idea?

Great, so nihilism

Ah yes, so we should have corporations controlling it? Because they can't be corrupt or evil?

The whole point of government control is at least everyone has some say in it, if we build the government decently. It has to be controlled by one or more human institutions, so choose your poison: government, nonprofits, forprofits, ... ?

>it's the real lesson that should be learned here

I believe the real lesson is that we need to fix government. Too many things that people assumed to be codified were actually only ever enforced by social contract.

Until now, we've largely operated within a band of norms that served us fairly well, if imperfectly.

However, we're now seeing what's possible when the social contract is shattered. We need to codify in ways that insulate government from wide variances in the reasonable operation of our form of government. And, we need to root out regulatory capture while we're at it.

Government involvement should be the people's voice. We need to restore that in earnest versus eliminate government involvement; else we're merely a corporatocracy.

Each government just adds shit on the previous, with small optics differences, anyway.

Like, in the US, Trump might do the ICE show for his voters, but Obama's deportated 3 million just fine in his time.

American hostility to the whole concept of government has led you to Trump’s brand of gangster capitalism (which will lead you to fascism if you let it).

Government intervention is good and useful and keeps a markets free and society fair, preventing things like monopolies, robber barons and insider trading.

When those constraints are removed, when government becomes the source of corruption, we end up wheee the US has arrived today - where companies that bribe government officials get preferred treatment and the law is used selectively as a weapon.

This is a very dangerous moment for the US.

> I'm sorry, but when you cry out for government involvement, it's not always going to be coming from the government you personally wanted.

I've pointed this out so many times when enforced DEI and cancellation culture was rife, and was asked, basically, why I wanted to be a nazi :-/

not really, the problem here is not that the government is involved per se, but that there is practically no involvment at all as the government is directly controlled by a clique of businessmen

so instead of involvment proper there is leverage somebody tries to pass onto competitors

If no government ever got involved we would all be slaves to a family of inbred kings.

I have been surprised how few people seem to gave taken the lesson from Trump that creating federal authority today empowers all future leaders.

Courts have slapped down some of Trump's actions thankfully, but a lot of what he has done that many disagree with simply shouldn't be legal and only are because in the past we had what may have been good reason to solve a short term problem.

Trump shouldn't have been legally allowed to enact a war without congressional approval before it began. As it stands he was able to sneak through with the war powers act, congress is completely unwilling to enforce their own oversight authority, and Trump eventually redefined how to interpret the war powers act and again congress rolled their eyes and didn't challenge it.

Nonsense. That's like saying that the concept of government in general is bad because a particular government might be bad.

It's perfectly reasonable to want government involvement that for sane governments is OK, even when you don't like that government. The current US government is a completely insane outlier. You cannot expect everything to adjust for the most insane outlier.

Do you not see the difference between Trumpian dictator-level “involvement” and regular day-to-day steering of legislation in a party-friendly manner?

This is laughable “both parties are as bad” thinking. By reasonable standards your current government has gone through involvement, passed straight through tampering and is now into nation-destruction mode. It’s a new thing for the rest of the world to see.

> I'm sorry, but when you cry out for government involvement, it's not always going to be coming from the government you personally wanted. This is the whole problem with government involvement!

That is not the problem with government involvement, it is the problem with bad governments.

It’s the insidious dualistic emotional trap that so many people are in, “my team is good and your team is bad”. People scoff at things like WWE but it’s really no different if you have a “my team” in sports (look around your space) or a side/team in the political theater where you vote really hard, pulling levers that have even categorically been shown are not connected to anything [1]. Please control the urge to respond or even think that your political team the controllers gave you siding with is somehow better. Your political WWE wrestler is not better than any others, it’s still all “scripted”, only actions and activities within system accepted bounds are permitted.

Sure, there are some differences and it’s not as scripted, just like how professional sports is not as scripted as WWE or other things people see in their rectangle called a phone/tv (even though people still debate, e.g., which super hero is better), but it’s still controlled by an overarching control harness.

It’s why regardless of voting or party in power, we always get the sane direction of movement even if one is flavored blue and another time it’s flavored red or the March forward has a left or right lean. Just like the manipulation of emotions in WWE or and soap opera drama, the manipulation works best when there’s cycles of tension and conflict to move people. That’s how narcissistic manipulators work.

It’s one of the ways in which you can tell they’re behind it all when you can take a step back and realize that there’s always this tension and constant conflict and drama, but somehow everything always works out in the narcissist’s interest and desired direction. It’s insidious.

Grok and ChatGpT are more in line with the narcissistic system’s interest of world domination by a cabal of psychopathic and extremely narcissistic and supremacist people … so Anthropic that may not want to participate in murder and mayhem and could be used by people who oppose murder, mayhem, and world domination needs to be kneecapped … ideally into submission. That’s all that this is, the constant evil that controls America doing what it has always done, rapaciously consume and abuse.

[1] https://stonecenter.gc.cuny.edu/files/2022/09/Hertel-Fernand...

[dead]

[flagged]

When you get big enough, the govt is always going to want to get involved.

We've seen how social media sites have always been in contention with govs regarding free speech even tho theyre fundamentally a way for other people to socialize with one another

Whenever someone wants "small government" I assume they mean "a government that does not prevent me from shackling you" and hoo boy does that end up correct a lot.

I guess it will be interesting if, in a week or two, OpenAI launches a "Fable class" model and it isn't blocked by the government.

It indeed is a wake up call. But at the same time the strong data protection laws, copyright and privacy laws make it extremely difficult for a European company to develop a frontier model. Activist lawyers can sue and drag startups for training their model on a news article and the legal expenses would be higher than the engineering costs.

ChatGPT was released 4 years ago and still out of 27 countries in EU, only Mistral based in France has a model closer to a frontiers and IMO EU has already lost the race and still trying to catch up to yesterday models.

As we learned with export restrictions on crypto in the 90s, that disadvantage will be short-lived and backfire in the long-run.

It's like, the 10th wake up call at this point

Google Deepmind is headquartered in the UK and has R & D in multiple countries. How would the US ban non-nationals from using something that is largely developed outside the US by people who are not US nationals?

Mistral might be a bit behind but this might give them a lot more business.

Most of all, a lot more people will switch to Chinese models. They will catchup, soon enough.

I have not had much of a chance to try Fable, but it did not seem better than Opus for what I tried it out on. Maybe its better on bigger jobs/vibe coding type tasks which is not something I do anyway.

xAI or OpenAI? (Or both?)

XAI rents out compute to anthropic. I feel like Sam Altman is behind this that little rat.

Why would foreign (relative to the US) models suddenly sit still? There's enormous incentive to improve; surely they'll be able to figure out how just like their American counterparts?

We've seen this movie before with crypto export bans in the 90s. The rest of the world caught up and then surpassed the US very quickly - and that was without the enormous financial incentives of AI.

this is my take, I hope Brussels has people on the dialer from 6am today. mistral needs 50B euros pronto

Markets were calm in after-hours trading. It's not as if there is nobody paying attention. That would be a massive inefficiency that couldn't realistically have persisted all the way to 2026, especially not with the introduction of AI to the trading world.

Hopefully compiled, analyzed, and written with AI

Correct on Enterprise. Teams has a 150 user cap.

On Enterprise you might end up saving money if the other harness is more efficient.

No, we use subscriptions. We wrap the underlying Claude Code with ACP. See: https://github.com/tilework-tech/nori-cli

I suspect it will lead to less open sourcing but at the same time that will drive on premise deployment demand from enterprises.

If that happens, presumably the weights eventually make their way online...

Chinese model companies are already beginning to close, instead of opening. The latest big Qwen models are not open, for example. And it doesn't look like they will be, either.

The article addresses a pretty compelling reason...

Why would the makers of open models (mostly Chinese firms) continue to open them up, now that the value chain and economy shifts? Previously, it was a (Chinese) national goal to force the market to compress OpenAI/Anthropic margins (and compressing their revenue along the way), to ensure the Chinese had access to high quality models, and could afford to compete. Now there is an opportunity to usurp and be the international default, and claim the margin for themselves by closing their models.

Beyond that, there is likely an upper bound of capability-per-parameter, which means that there is an upper bound on "local" models, and once you need the cloud, why would the government not target clouds next?

By all indications, Fable is way too big to feasibly host locally. Even Opus is probably near enough to the limit.

To be clear, the restriction is not to native-born citizens of the US but citizens of the US in general. David Sacks is a US citizen.

That wouldn't have helped, the US government would still ban the model

>I managed to do things with Fable that really should not be possible.

Such as?

the bigger point i think stands - we're going to have a similar story with AI as for example the 40-bit encryption of the past and drones of today, i.e. sure export controlled and most probably regulated practically away for general public. I.e general license to possess/access 8B model max, and maximum 3 models summing to max 16B in total.

The post talks about this kind of rhetoric

> Speaking of the HN/Reddit folks, lots of people are gleefully cackling about how Anthropic got what they deserved for their ‘marketing stunt’ with Mythos. As I’ve said before, this isn’t the first time we’ve had an AI CEO argue that something is ‘unsafe’ for personal gain.

Do you not think it is time to give up the whole "it is hype" rhetoric and come to reality -- the models can actually be unsafe and naturally Fable is closed off and the government is pulling access.

>The world is a bit bigger than US and China, if Anthropic did it, another company can do it as well.

Well, yes but it also took questionable legality and a massive pile of cash to get there. OpenAI has raised $180b and Anthropic $132b

Don't forget that US and China are the only 2 countries with chips to train and run the models.

At this point I'm starting to get scared that the hardware itself could get banned. We went from free personal computing to remote attestation to being priced out and now the threat of being literally regulated looms over us. Even if we amassed a small fortune and decided to spend it on our own inference-capable computers, we might find that we literally can't purchase the hardware.

> The world is a bit bigger than US and China

With respect to AI capabilities is it really?

I don't see anyone else producing frontier closed source LLM's or frontier open source LLM's outside of US and China.

Dark times like:

- Staying alive

- Keeping our jobs

?

Ask a recent college grad if the world is drastically different today then when they started college.

Did you think 5 years into the invention of electricity the world already was vastly different? The internet? Would you have written them off because random people didn't know much about them at that point - which isnt even true as chatgpt has been ~ the 5th most popular site in the world for a couple of years now?

> it actually has the opposite effect for me, showing that anthropic is that far ahead you have to resort to dirty tricks.

The Mythos marketing strategy in action

Of course it is, the USA is under the control of a petty toddler that demands absolute loyalty, not to the country, but him personally.

OTOH, maybe Dario is colluding with some people the US government to drum up some PR before the IPO? "OoOoo these models are so scarily good, export controls were forced onto them"

So much smoke, mirrors and SV techbro bullshit going around that it has become impossible to figure out what's what.