The damage is done. You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Especially not with the current crew in charge.
Now whether AI tech is in the same league as say Nuclear tech and therefore by any reasonable standard should be regulated is a different question.
We hit the slippery slope on a random day in June 2026 and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Any exec or manager that puts load bearing weight on top of Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/AmericanCorp frontier model deserves the stress.
This kills the entire enterprise market for AI models better than Opus 4.8
1) No one is going to build any workflows/capabilities that could have the underlying intelligence rug pulled instantly by a bureaucracy or malevolent politician.
2) Even if a company was silly enough to take on the risk, is Anthropic going to ask all their enterprise customers to provide passports for all their employees and then setup individual Claude accounts for each and every employee of each and every enterprise customer in order to gatekeep access to Mythos? Because a plain ole api key no longer cuts it
You think Anthropic will ask all their enterprise customers to provide passports for all their employees and then setup individual Claude accounts for each and every employee to gatekeep access to Mythos? Because a plain ole api key no longer cuts it
This is not going to be popular but I have noticed the same phenomenon at other companies where hiring decisions (especially for management hires) is a diversity quota exercise.
The decline is slow at first but compounds rapidly. Smart and lazy people leave first. Average but ambitious employees leave. Smart and hard working folks are the last to leave. Leaving the grifters and dumb & lazy to pick through the remains.
So combine that with “post-facto” code reviews on a weekly cadence; there is potentially 7 day window during which a bad faith employee could act unrestrained?
Certainly this is giving me pause on using your platform for anything other hobby projects
This is worst kind of argument one makes. You are constructing it in a manner that only serves to make the other person look like a jerk while the reality is much more nuanced.
Without any prior knowledge of the actors involved you assign all good traits to one side; the restaurant created a hot meal and the delivery person really tried their best to deliver on time, and then assign bad traits to the customer, they were unreasonable and should be more understanding.
There are people who don't do the right thing and if I am paying for something then I expect to receive what I paid for. You don't know me. Maybe I am struggling financially and the meal I ordered was a once in month treat for my wife and children and we can't afford the luxury of eating out. Maybe we were all looking forward to a family dinner. Maybe the restaurant fucked up. Maybe the driver is running multiple delivery apps and making a killing in these while the orders go cold.
In the context of American culture it seems like a significant fraction of citizens wish to own and bear arms. That desire which exists within those citizens has deep cultural and historical roots.
But export that same cultural desire via a migrant American residing in almost any other country in the world and it would seem out of place in the context of the local culture. People would be weird out by the creepy American who insists on keeping guns in his or her house.
Same goes for the Burkha. Take it out of context of it's deep historical and cultural context in it's birthplace and it is an anachronism; like taking Mt Fuji and placing in the middle of Saudi Arabia.
Netherlands just banned the Burkha in public spaces for this reason (among others).
In Australia bike helmets are banned in 7-11, Fuel stations, Banks, Pubs, Casino's, Festivals etc for the same reason.
The point I am making is that you can't ignore the possibility of bad actors now or in the future. There are layers of cultural differences and social mores and in a multicultural society you can't just import one aspect of a culture without considering the foundations and layers on top.
> If the woman want to wear Burka, it should be within their rights.
What if there are robbers targeting fuel stations and 7-11 stores or mugging people on the street, using burka's and the entire black garment to cover their intent on approach and foil any video surveillance?
How many such incidents would it take before you would consider that Burka's ought to be banned in public spaces? Let's up the stakes and say the robberies were violent; how many people would have to die before you banned burkhas?
It does seem arbitrary but I think the answer might be far more mundane than conspiratorial; There is simply no legal authority to hoover up the data of and trace back to american citizens for 8chan type websites.
I don't know man, even if the NSA, FBI etc couldn't give a shit about the legal implications, Cloudflare as a public company and it's officers would have legal liability if they violated the law.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some three letter agencies (US + Allied nations) have asked Cloudflare not to take ISIS and the like off the Internet.
Why? Because given the technical sophistication of NSA,GHCQ etc vs the average extremist manic in the wild, it is the easiest honeypot there could be to catch all the extremist flies. Click a Like button on FB ISIS page.. Gotcha; watch a ISIS video served through the CDN.. Gotcha; Have any sort of ingress,egress data flow from any of the ISIS content... Gotcha
Now whether AI tech is in the same league as say Nuclear tech and therefore by any reasonable standard should be regulated is a different question.
We hit the slippery slope on a random day in June 2026 and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Any exec or manager that puts load bearing weight on top of Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/AmericanCorp frontier model deserves the stress.