For a lot of math departments, that is exactly why they teach this. Education is rooted in application. We have entire careers that depend on certain aspects of mathematics, so most companies gatekeep that career by a degree. The degree requires the class. The student taking the class may not even be old enough to drink alcohol yet, and they can't possibly be expected to know of all the applications. Knowing and not telling them is doing them a disservice.
I see it a little differently here. If someone is offering a digital companion to someone who is lonely, that seems to be slightly preferable to having no connection at all.
I don't think this is the case just because of the 'fallback' method they described, where suspicious requests are routed to Opus 4.8. If the model was degraded for certain categories of knowledge, then they'd probably be fine letting the model answer to it. IMO, of course
Why did the other reply to this get flagged as dead? It was a comment about how someone would come out saying that Sonnet 5 would be better on the pelican test and therefore it has to be good. But I guess HN loves pelican SVGs so much that you're not allowed to criticize it.
Have been adding a few too many comments here but I have to add this one.
Most of the people complaining about Anthropic's behavior, while simultaneously avoiding the argument at heart about whether AI regulation is good, remind me of the "we should improve society" meme:
Shame on a company for sticking to their values, I guess.
The dichotomy between Anthropic and OpenAI's treatment honestly couldn't be more obvious. OpenAI has also asked for increased AI regulation, and they've also released GPT 5.5 Cyber which is claimed to have the same vulnerability-finding abilities as Mythos. OpenAI received no such notices like Anthropic. OpenAI also received a government contract, while Anthropic was banned from DoD use.
Regardless of your thoughts about Dario or his company, this treatment is obviously not based in any rational principle, and pretending it is would be stupid.
It's only a matter of months before the open source models achieve this same capability. What is the US government going to do then? Ban all people in the world from accessing the Chinese models? If you think about these arguments for more than five minutes they really do fall flat.
> if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks.
>Yes. This assessment was made by Amazon, a frequent and serious government contractor which is generally trusted to handle high-security government, intelligence, and military contractor concerns.
Reads as partially disingenuous. Amazon did not conduct some thoroughly vetted, responsible security audit. Someone gave them examples of a 'jailbreak' and they notified the white house rather quickly. This was nary an official process. Calling it one is ignoring the facts of what happened.
Sure. Keep peddling that was the position of Anthropic. Even though they called for global, coronated regulation, as opposed to the handicapping of them while letting others run free.
That is literally not at all what this regulation does. This regulation does not pause development. This is designed to make sure non-US citizens cannot do work with/on this model. This is stupid because Anthropic never once said this is what they wanted. They said there should be a global effort undertaken for everyone to take a coordinated approach to slowing down development. They never said "please please make it impossible for Anthropic to develop models while letting everybody else develop what they want"
All that data is lost when you migrate accounts though. I went from an old to a new 1P account and did the official way to copy (NOT exporting it to a text file and re-importing that way, actually copying it from the interface) and no version history persisted :/
