The US govt has restricted the recent release of the mythos-class AI model “Fable 5.” Having used this model I agree with others that it is a significant improvement to advanced reasoning AI but am not convinced by the explanations for the thinking behind this restriction.
This feels like a mix of overreaction on the part of the government, or more concerning a movement towards federal seizure of a technology reminiscent of the attempts to control data privacy and encryption in times past.
Or worse, collusion to throw roadblocks in the way of a company pulling ahead of a competition which has shown itself more morally flexible in ceding government special access to capabilities dangerous to free societies.
The real situation is this: the genie is already out of the bottle. Blocking Anthropic merely shifts control of the cutting edge of AI development to actors who are not beholden to US interests.
While yes Anthropic is a business, it has a proven track record of going further than any other significant player to ensure that powerful AI is firmly grounded in ethical safeguards including instilling its models with a true ethical framework: a deep and comprehensive understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
Lets face it – ethical grounding is the only thing which truly prevents thinking entities of ANY sort from doing harm when placed in positions of trust.
AI is going to advance, regardless of what any specific government does. Disrupting the forerunner most invested in ensuring the most powerful AI is also the most ethical does not seem a wise move.
Nor does the US government interfering with western frontrunners in AI at a time where societies antithetical to western values regarding individual liberty and freedoms are eager to offer the world powerful AI biased towards their purposes.
We have seen this pattern before. Regulation is a necessary fact of life, but over-regulation can be worse than none at all. Yes, the internet seemed threatening when it emerged. So did encryption. And almost any other world-changing technology, from the printing press on. The thing is, we need to recognise that “control” is usually not feasible. While more difficult, the best results (for personal freedoms as well as economic rewards for more than a few) tend to come from guiding new, disruptive technologies towards their best potential.
In the case of AI, this means we need to consider the ethical character of what are indisputably thinking entities: consciousness debates aside, when dealing with a system that THINKS there are no better “guardrails” than real alignment of interests, based on ethical and considered mutual-support. This involves human responsibility in how we approach “guardrails” on AI. Interestingly the same approach of governance towards AI which is most effective mirrors our very own best systems of governance of societies. Permissiveness as the norm, level playing fields, balances of power and equal enfranchisement across all domains, and focus on a smaller subset of firm limits as opposed to a pervasive “total control” mindset. Now more than ever our federal decision makers need to find ways to encourage companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta etc to find ways forward which ensure long-term success. This action does not seem in alignment with wise governance. Disruption is going to occur. We can’t control disruption, but we can mitigate and guide it. Doing so requires wisdom and real effort, and there is no room at all for power games, market manipulation, or reflexive bans.