Finally finished reading this article. Wow, just wow. This article is next generation in spinning a narrative.
Here is the crux: The Meme itself decries the fact that AI companies are gatekeeping their models to give us poor folks nerfed versions.
And here is how the article frames it:
Anthropic refused to give Pentagon the "un-nerfed, non-gatekept" raw AI model to Pentagon for national security.
The article characterizes this as "The AI would not be used for mass surveillance of American citizens. It would not be used to control fully autonomous weapons systems where no human being was in the decision loop."
Very laudable right? But, what the article DOES NOT mention is that Anthropic wanted to be the gatekeeper who decides when the AI can be used and cannot be used, on their own, with no visibility. So a woke programmer in Anthropic could potentially put in the gatekeeping for Pentagon in software used for national security.
That is when Pentagon put Anthropic as "Supply Risk" because that is indeed what it is - Pentagon would be in a high risk if they had to depend on a private company to gatekeep the critical software features.
OpenAI, on the otherhand made a deal where these two "gatekeeping" would be done more transparently with the Pentagon, and hence got the deal.
Point 1: This article portrays private gatekeeping as a GOOD thing while trying to pretend they care about these companies gatekeeping.
Now, lets go to the whole "changelog-gate". The summary is that "Claude had to reduce AI "effort" to MEDIUM since they could not afford to keep running at higher effort that they had been offering due to budget issues.
The article connects this to "Pentagon punishing Anthropic"
But lets unpack. Anthropic was able to subsidise their "HIGH QUALITY" offering because of "Pentagon Contracts".
Anons who are smart would find that very familiar. This is how the Big Tech companies were being controlled by the Cabal - given them tons of money in the name of "government contracts" and give them a competitive edge.
Point 2: The reason why Anthropic/Claude was the darling of all AIs was because they had sweetheart deals with government contracts
And a final, anecdotal point. Having been using OpenAI GPT-4/5 for a few months now, and having compared it with Claude, I can tell anyone that, atleast when it comes to coding (one of the toughest usecases for AI) I can use OpenAI's $20 subscription exactly as effectively as the Claude MAX subscription that costs >10x working on really complex systems software that is typically only handled by senior software engineers with field expertise of atleast 3 years.
So, I had always suspected that Claude was being pushed rather heavily but this article actually confirms my suspicions.
This also lines up with all the constant anti-OpenAI attacks, be it allegations by ex-employees that their AI has become sentient to recent allegations hat Sam Altman is "opening portals" - one thing is for sure. The Cabal is definitely trying to take control of OpenAI.
Thank you for the crux.
Not as convinced as you about the author's intentions. That is, I don't think he's saying Claude is better than Open AI. In fact he describes both their motivations as the same and undercuts Anthropic's morality arguments as pure posturing.
What he describes is exactly what customers have experienced in most consumer goods for the last 4-5 decades: the brand starts off as high quality until the chosen inflection point when their market share has reduced consumers' ability to choose, at which point they start cheapening their product. This is especially notable in established software products because newer iterations are often inferior to prior editions without any argument that inputs have increased, because they could've literally done nothing and had a better (already existing) product. To me that's the real point of what he's saying, that all corporations are corrupt liars.
Open AI might be the good guy in this drama. And I'll take your word that it's a better product. But I don't think he's exactly cheering Anthropic, even if the cabal is. In fact he highlights Anthropic as the epitome of faceless and shameless cynicism.
And I'm sure your right that the cabal wants to capture Open AI too, because their appetite always demands the whole enchilada.
Just want to clarify these two:
I wouldn't go to that extent. Just that OpenAI seems to be less controlled than Anthropic
Not "better product" but rather more "cost effective product".
Even OpenAI engineers will tell you that as far as the raw model is concerned Anthropic leads OpenAI by 3-6 months. However RL (reasoning) in OpenAI is slightly better than in Anthropic. But what is really stark is the cost effectiveness, that pretty much makes these small model differences irrelevant, esp if you know how to optimise prompts.
Good points. Thanks.
Seems to me that AI may be, at least in part, the Deep State upping its game.
In 2016, during Cankles' campaign, Deep State used the ole Fake News to promote her, thinking that it would work because it had always worked before. However, they were oblivious to all of us anons wandering the internet. Before the election, you could find all kinds of cool conspiracy theories anywhere.
After Trump won, Deep State did a mass crackdown on what happens on the internet. But it was too late. The Anon News Network was too well established, and capable of moving around to different platforms.
I suspect that part of the AI push is the Deep State trying to get back control by convincing people that whatever AI spews out is "truth."
Prove me wrong.
Absolutely, at least one pillar of what they want to use AI for. If the didnt lose control of the narrative warfare (Elon, X etc), they would have used highly regulated AI to spew out fact checks and claim they are unbiased. Ideally this would have needed a decade to work out, so its questionable whether that plan would have worked post-Covid era, but if Trump never won it would have been possible and I think AI was lined up for that timefame.
However, the flip side is that, once you have unregulated AI that can spit out raw facts, once you learn how to wield this tool to do real fact checking, you will be immune from all kinds of propaganda.
Thanks B_B. Very well written.
Its the giveaway, is it not? When it is pushed, there is an edge we have not considered, meaning, RED FLAG: stop and analyze.
idem with Open Source:
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASZVlx4Tf/x/c/4ebloCSCfmD
If the Cabal is trying to take control over the AI models then it stands to reason that's why the govt is pushing for unilateral, open, and unrestricted access to all functions.
I'm sorry (not really), but giving any one entity, whether it be public or private, unfettered, unilateral, unrestricted access to these AI programs for any and all possible uses is absolute insanity.
Of course our govts would want to tie in those programs with military functionality. And of course they'd want to use them in such a way as to eliminate the need for humans to be in the decision loop as to how, where, why, and what those autonomous weapons systems would be used. We're already seeing widespread governmental abuse of surveillance AIs. And now in Ukraine they're being used with drone technology for battlefield testing in a ls close to a fully autonomous decision making structure as possible! These things are actively deciding which combatants to target and eliminate. It's a very small step from targeting combatants to targeting civilians caught in a battlefield that dynamic and always changing. Civilian casualties happen in battle and war, but we don't fully understand how these models reason out decisions, so it's more than likely that we will inevitably see a civilian population targeted by AI powered drones in the very near future.
The Pentagon wanted unrestricted access to Anthropic's for the very purpose of militaristic decision making. If we don't trust our own govt to not use drones against civilians when humans are in the desion-making loop, ala Obama's drone use against civilians, then why would we allow any other system to have the same type of access, especially when it's unclear whether or not restrictions against harm to humans are in place? The fact that these AI companies refuse to admit one way or the other is very telling. It tells me that they don't have any safety restrictions as to the type or amount of harm they can cause to humans.
There needs to be a global pause on all AI development until The People have a direct say in how, where, and why l, and for what reasons these programs are implemented. Until then, absolutely NO ONE should have unrestricted and unlimited access, whether it's our govts or even the very AI companies themselves. Not until it's clear that they can't be used for human harm.
Just remember, if something exists, and is not available to public, it is most definitely available to certain private entities, who will then use it to control the public.