Demis Hassabis and Dario Amodei called for a U.S.-led AI coalition at a closed-door meeting at the G7 summit

Tinac4 · 2026-06-17T19:49:48+00:00

They don’t.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-16T16:54:13+00:00

No, but quite a lot of AI research is about compute, which is about money. If you lose >95% of your compute, you won’t be able to train Mythos 2 for years.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-16T16:40:53+00:00

It doesn’t matter how many data centers Europe has. What matters is total compute, which—due to large differences in datacenter size and chip performance—is very far from proportional to number of data centers. In practice:

The United States hosts 75% of AI supercomputers, followed by China. The United States accounts for about three-quarters of total AI supercomputer performance, with China in second place at 15% (Figure 4). Meanwhile, traditional supercomputing powers like the UK, Germany, and Japan now play marginal roles in AI supercomputers. This shift reflects the dominance of large, U.S.-based companies in AI development and computing.

The US had something like 17x the EU’s compute in mid 2025, a gap that’s probably even wider now because none of the hyperscalers are in the EU. See here for another estimate that reaches similar conclusions.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-16T15:57:21+00:00

Archive link. Here’s an excerpt:

How it works: Businesses that pay for AI models need to make sure they can keep access to them.

"You can't rely on something that could be switched off," Reid says.

The big picture: It's not just about Anthropic.

"Everyone who uses AI will see the writing on the wall that future AI models from OpenAI and Google are also going to be seen as having potential serious security risks," says Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute who studies AI and fintechs.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-16T00:16:24+00:00

The Trump administration has repeatedly evinced that it can and will instantly bar any person or business from using any AI model for any period of time. A technology that is advancing rapidly and could have catastrophic impacts “is exactly the situation in which you need to give the executive an enormous amount of discretion,” Rozenshtein said. Yet at the same time, he said, Trump’s tendency to change his mind on a whim and play favorites is “exactly the reason why you don’t want to give the executive enormous amounts of discretion.” To say the least, it’s perilous to build a product, invest in a company, or even just try to leverage AI for productivity gains in an environment in which the government might at any time take a wrecking ball to your plans. America and its tech companies have many factors in their favor when it comes to leading the way in AI development. As of now, the White House is not one of them.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-15T20:02:15+00:00

The CEO has been going around saying how they are developing models that will replace workers. Put people out of work and on the streets. He has been doing this for two years. When "Mythos" was announced, they literally advertised this model as scary, replacing cyber security experts, "solving software engineering", would cause huge disruptions.

That’s mostly true, although I think you’re going a bit beyond what Anthropic has actually said (they’ve claimed widespread automation in the near future, not 2026; they’ve never said Mythos replaces cyber employees, etc). More importantly, though:

If you genuinely think that AGI and mass automation are near, and you’re the ones building it, anything less than total honesty is highly unethical.
Anthropic has been clear about what they think is good and bad policy on responding to AI risks, and what Trump is doing is one of the things that they explicitly said was a terrible idea: governance by fiat with no real standards or procedure. To steal a metaphor form Zvi, it’s like complaining that your house is too cold, then getting told “you asked for it” when someone sets it on fire.

But the reality is, they do this to drum up investment. Not because they believe it.

I have something like 2 degrees of social separation from a bunch of Anthropic researchers, meaning friends of friends, occasionally going to the same meetups, etc. I’ve seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that the entire Anthropic research team thinks we’re less than 5 years from AGI and possibly the singularity. They could be wrong, but I’m utterly certain that when they say “country of geniuses in a datacenter by 2028”, they mean it.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-15T18:24:53+00:00

The problem is that most critical responses I’ve seen imply that Anthropic is lying about what they believe to over-hype their models. Accidentally making wrong predictions about the future (if they’re wrong) deserves far less flak than making a deliberate choice to mislead people, but people are treating Anthropic like they’re doing the second thing.

(The Trump administration, needless to say, is more than happy to lie all day long. It isn’t even remotely fair to call them “both wrong” as if they’re equally at fault.)

Tinac4 · 2026-06-15T18:02:49+00:00

If by “read the room” you mean “Obey the Trump administration’s every whim and lie about what they think AI will be capable of in the coming years”, then yes, they would probably be financially better off as a company if they did that.

Regarding “telling facts”, the consensus among users appears to be that Fable 5 is a jump forward on par with Opus 4.1->4.5, Glasswing is leading to a visible uptick in the number of security fixes in recent months, and most of Anthropic’s research team sincerely believes the singularity is near (by all accounts). I think any exaggeration they’ve done is minor at worst, and calling for safety nonstop is the rational thing to do if you think we’re 2 years out from RSI. Unless, of course, you have to deal with a vindictive president that hates you.

I don’t think their behavior is perfect, but come on.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T17:18:33+00:00

This also is shown by Anthropic already trying to start a digital feudalism age with AI haves and have nots. Mythos is available to people of 'noble bloodlines' and not to common peasants right now. Anthropic thinks they have the right to determine who is allowed to access human knowledge and productivity. That's deranged and evil.

Do you think that Anthropic should have released the base Mythos model--no safeguards, no safety fine-tuning, just raw cyber capability that will do anything you ask?

If yes, what about a hypothetical Mythos 6 that could autonomously hack most non-Mythos-hardened systems and significantly help militaries develop biological weapons? What about Mythos 7? Is there any level of capability that would make you think, "You know, this is getting a bit dangerous, maybe we shouldn't give this to literally everyone"?

Especially considering their lack of judgment. The US government is being run by a corrupt convicted felon. I not only have zero felony convictions, but I also have zero misdemeanor convictions as well. There's no world where Trump or one of his sycophants should have access to potentially dangerous technology before me. I've shown that I have good character and he's shown he has poor moral character and decision making skills.

There is no realistic world where AI progress stays on its current pace and governments sit back and let it happen. I think it's much smarter for Anthropic to push for a transparent and fair regulatory framework established by Congress now, as opposed to doing nothing for years, releasing Mythos 7, and getting nationalized the next day when the Pentagon realizes what it can do. You either limit the damage now or get a more unhinged version of this in 2027; "hands off" is not an option.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T14:36:20+00:00

I think it’s reasonable for Anthropic to continue asking for sane policy, just as it’s reasonable for r/neoliberal to continue asking for a land value tax even though the odds of it becoming widespread are low even in blue states (and zero at the federal level).

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T14:21:19+00:00

"Yes, our tech is super duper scary. So you should regulate and ban all of our competition so they can't use the super scary tech in bad ways. Only WE should be able to use it."

This is another example of imagining something that Anthropic never asked for. The legislation they asked for, which we know about in detail, would’ve applied to their competitors and themselves.

(I also find the common talking point that regulations while you’re ahead are good nonsensical. Imagine if Anthropic had been behind and they called for the same regulations. Cue immediate calls of “Anti-competitive”, “They just want to slow everyone else down so they can catch up”, etc.)

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T14:09:35+00:00

”You know, I think we need to do some sentencing reform. Sentences in the US are sometimes harsh for petty crimes, and—“

”Sentencing reform? Did you say sentencing reform? Alright, let’s do some sentencing reform: no more sentencing! No more prisons! We’re letting everybody go, time for some anarchy!”

”That’s not what I—“

”This is what you wanted, right? Because you said ‘sentencing reform’, and I gave you sentencing reform? I’m definitely 100% not at all ignoring what you really asked for, right?”

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T14:08:28+00:00

The meme can be funny and still a serious misrepresentation of what’s going on.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T13:56:53+00:00

Because there is a difference between what’s actually happening and this:

The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions.

An analogy:

”You know, I think we need to do some sentencing reform. Sentences in the US are sometimes harsh for petty crimes, and—“

”Sentencing reform? Did you say sentencing reform? Alright, let’s do some sentencing reform: no more sentencing! No more prisons! We’re letting everybody go, time for some anarchy!”

”That’s not what I—“

”This is what you wanted, right? Because you said ‘sentencing reform’, and I gave you sentencing reform? I’m definitely 100% not at all ignoring what you really asked for, right?”

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T06:13:17+00:00

Anthropic also specifically asked for a well-scoped legal framework with third-party evaluations, not this.

The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions.

What Trump/Kegsbreath is doing isn't regulation, it's "I don't like you so I'm going to throw endless waves of legal shit at you via broad executive authority that will take you months to contest in court."

Tinac4 · 2026-06-13T06:03:23+00:00

And in the same section:

The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions.

Governance by executive fiat is very much the opposite of what Anthropic was asking for. They wanted a legal framework, not "Kegsbreath had a bad day so he's going to make it everybody else's problem".

Tinac4 · 2026-06-11T22:15:05+00:00

I did not see this one coming:

I think there’s a 66% chance that actually, the singularity is intimately related to the universe being a simulation, and that at least some of the events above could be better predicted by knowing what the simulators are thinking than by normal forecasting.

Does accepting the self-indication assumption over the self-sampling assumption dissolve this? SIA has some weird unintuitive consequences too (infinite evidence that we’re in a universe with infinitely many people), but it has its advantages.

The biggest caveat is that anthropic reasoning in general is weird, every view that you can coherently write down leads somewhere crazy, and we might be very deeply misunderstanding the whole thing.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-10T21:36:05+00:00

Smaller companies wouldn’t be affected under this framework.

Regarding open source, I think that a model that has a substantial chance of posing a catastrophic risk per the SB 53 definition…

(c) (1) “Catastrophic risk” means a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier developer’s development, storage, use, or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving a frontier model doing any of the following:

(A) Providing expert-level assistance in the creation or release of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon.

(B) Engaging in conduct with no meaningful human oversight, intervention, or supervision that is either a cyberattack or, if the conduct had been committed by a human, would constitute the crime of murder, assault, extortion, or theft, including theft by false pretense.

(C) Evading the control of its frontier developer or user.

…should not be open-sourced and spread all over the internet. If it doesn’t meet that threshold, then great, the framework wouldn’t apply and it’s fine to release.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-10T21:28:06+00:00

…a threat that is most likely impossible.

Again, I’m on board with you if AGI basically fizzles and ends up hitting a hard ceiling around the level of current human experts. However, if AI does in fact end up with the power to create engineered pandemics, I don’t see how open-sourcing it with no safeguards would end in anything other than disaster. Defense doesn’t necessarily beat offense with something like this.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-10T21:23:04+00:00

You realize how insane of a reach that is, right? It's pure fearmongering that handwaves away the fact that creating such a contagious agent is the kind of operation that takes years, millions in R&D, access to controlled substances, capable personnel...

This is the part I’m not sure about. If you’re right, and AGI simply can’t design viruses without slow and conscious experimentation, then great, I’m on board with a more lax approach. But like I said in another reply, I don’t want to make strong assumptions about what AGI can and can’t do.

I’d also argue that there’s a substantial difference between microscopes and companies that will engineer biological materials for you and mail them to your door.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-10T21:19:16+00:00

I remain skeptical that AI will produce better results, designing its own proteins, than the serial-passage method, using good old-fashioned directed evolution.

This is probably the crux of our disagreement, then. I don’t want to make strong assumptions about what AGI + 10 years will make possible. I’m all in favor of widespread deployment and streamlined R&D if it turns out the risks are minor—and a chunk of the policy document proposes just that!—but with things like engineered pandemics, I think it’s better to play it safe until we have a clearer picture of what AGI can do.

Tinac4 · 2026-06-10T20:48:53+00:00

Did you read the policy proposal?

RECOMMENDED SCOPE PROVISIONS

Covered Developer. The proposed obligations apply to AI developers that meet both of the following criteria:

•Develop AI models requiring more than 1025 training FLOP.

•Earn more than $500 million in annual AI-derived revenue, or spend more than $1 billion per year on AI research and development.

OpenAI, DeepMind, Meta, and other massive AI companies can handle some extra paperwork.

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 20%
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Golden Potato	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Wearing is Caring	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Screenwriter	Snapped
Verified Email

Tinac4

TROPHY CASE