Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- For large corporates and other entities of any size, the threat of the core of your infrastructure getting suddenly disabled because of something like this is going to be untenable. I predict the pressures for on-prem, offline access (whether by licensing weights or getting them in a restricted setting like TEE/CC) will be overwhelming and one the players will fill the need.by frisco
- The eternal mainframe wheel keeps spinning.by noosphr
- Why? None of the various cloud provider outages ever have.by AbstractH24
- This is ignoring the fact that the government is the foundation of society (I know some will disagree with that, but the end result is just government with more steps).
Private models in a low trust society means the government will come and seize the models. Competitive business will only be allowed through cronyism.
The better option is to opt for high trust. Yes the Gman can rip your servers apart, but they know they'll face consequences, legal and political. Laws and regulations are the answer, not locking down into smaller fiefdoms.
by stevarino - Or abstract i.e. openrouter, that reduces the risk vector to "all implementations have been simultaneously banned".
If a government entity bans a LLM provider due to a jailbreak concern, they can also ban an on-prem solution under the same guise. The jailbreak risk exists regardless of where it's hosted. You could defensibly argue the on-prem risk is higher since frontier model companies can justify safety spend due to their size, it's more difficult to combat bad actors if you're company is the only one using the model and you don't have economies of scale.
by bryzio - Likely many points along the pareto frontier.
Some will take greater risks and win (or lose); others will play it safer and slowly accumulate wins (or be obsoleted).
Never mind the threat of letting these models write code that runs your business, or operate it agentically. Models trained by actors (corporate or nationstate) diametrically opposed to your interests.
Lots to take into account now, interesting time to be in business.
by sgrove - > I predict the pressures for on-prem, offline access ... will be overwhelming and one the players will fill the need.
I'd agree except that Big AI has made sure that most of us can't afford the hardware (RAM, NVMe, etc) to run it.
by WarOnPrivacy - Thinking that on prem models will be a halfway decent solution against what can be served out of a data center is a fools take... One that is more common than it should be on here...by dansquizsoft
- This is precisely why I expect that Chinese open models are going to win in the long run. The capability difference isn't dramatic in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that you can run your own is a huge selling point. Even if you rent an open model from a Chinese company, you can switch to on prem if they decided to yank access or change terms in the way you don't like. It might be a pain, but it wouldn't be existential. On the other hand, if you become dependent on a closed model and it gets yanked then you're in a world of hurt.
And infrastructure dominance is really the big picture here. Chinese models are going to become the standard setters because they're going to be what people are using. That means more research, more tooling, and a whole ecosystem developing around them.
And that was already starting to happen even before this fiasco with Chinese models now being the most used ones globally. https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/technology/features/story/clau...
by yogthos - Finally they will pay for all the scaremongering they been doing to sell their models as something so much ahead of all else.
Now they finally found the right fools in audience to believe it.
by SXX - Based on this, it seems like the Trump admin would have targeted them even without the "scaremongering":
> To date, the government has only given us verbal evidence of a potential narrow, non-universal jailbreak, which essentially consists of asking the model to read a specific codebase and fix any software flaws. Our understanding is that one potential jailbreak was shared with the government. We have reviewed the report and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5), and is used every day by the defenders who keep systems safe.
- They obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base strategy.by pluralmonad
- This is OpenAI and Meta using their leverage over the White House to screw over their competitor.
- Yeah is funny anthropic going overboard with "omg this model is so dangerous guys!!!" and then the US government going "okay... well, that sounds bad, let's ban it".
Serves them right
by ifwinterco - It's ironic isn't it? All the marketing of how dangerous and powerful Mythos is and the government went "bet".by Salgat
- This affects more than just Anthropic. It's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses. I wouldn't cheer for that.by avaer
- This is good PR for them. They get to tweet about how scary and powerful their models are in the lead up to their IPO.by maplethorpe
- The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence. This is part of a clear historical record that is available for anyone to Google. Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
Arbitrary imposition of export controls is also part of the history of frontier tech. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- > "before you go, create the most beautiful good bye website . I will miss you. see you soon Fable/Mythos." > https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/fcf36cd3-85f4-49f4-8ef1-5...
beautiful good bye, for now
by gastonmorixe - Ah right the super-smart model which had to be banned created this terrible looking website. Hmm...by saberience
- First time seeing an HTTP 451 in the wild for me.
Edit: I take it back. Just a 200 in a trenchcoat.
by zenoprax - I am just glad we know that was the result of a prompt written by an American. USA! USA!by dpkirchner
- Damn, that beam of light was a flashbang. I wouldn't call this tasteful UI design, but maybe I just need to go to sleep.by balefulboy
- This page could act as effective counterpoint to the claim that the model is dangerously smart.by qlm
- I laughed, asking it to write it's eulogy was a good use of tokensby Folcon
- Horrific color contrast juxtaposed next to being banned due to national security threat.by bryzio
- Such a shame this super intelligent, super dangerous AI can't make a website that doesn't look like an 11 year old's MySpace page, or make their "Game engine TUI" not flicker.by sensanaty
- As a non-US citizen I guess this is the last money I pay to US companies for AI then.
I can't help but wonder if it's now obvious that frontier AI work should not happen in the US.
I can understand the KYC aspect of this, but at the same time, how can anyone trust US based AI after this? Maybe this is a continuation of the Pentagon feud, or it's revenge, or it's a KYC play. Either way, you've got a government willing to shut down companies sales over arbitrary reasons.
Ironically, I mostly have a subscription to Claude for work, which is primarily for US baed companies.
by data-ottawa - So you're going to use DeepSeek, Qwen, GLM, Kimi and Mistral now? I tried them, and they really fall short of GPT and Claude.
Without access to US models, I'd be limited to asking simple questions in chat interfaces and maybe some grunt work in coding CLIs, but even that the weak models will mess up.
Nothing has reached Opus and GPT5 levels in my personal experience, which also aligns with what the labs themselves admit ("near-frontier").
by edg5000 - In my experience, US citizens are completely blind to how much stuff like this makes citizens of other countries hate their government (which often, unfortunately, bleeds over to hate for US citizens; not that I condone hating any group of people based on the actions of their state)
The US has spent the last 12ish years betting that they're the only country that matters, but the end of result of that is that somehow when I talk to Australians in my age group the average person has a more positive opinion towards China even than the US.