8 ms·
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 w
by drevil-v2 3mo ago
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.
- espeed 3mo agoThe Damage: Now every time Claude does something stupid or trashes your code, developers in the back of their mind will think, is Claude sabotaging me on purpose? [1] Trust is hard to gain. Easy to lose. And harder to get back. Models will converge. Trust won't. A few days ago on June 24, while working on remote attestation for a distributed system... CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part What are we to think? Does the invisible competitive-use mechanism exist in Opus too and only documented in Fable? How long has it existed? Is it still in effect? -- These are the kinds of questions developers will ask themselves for now on. This is why it was one of the stupidest things Anthropic could have done. Developers will now question everything and rightly so. There's no attestation protocol for that. How will they know? [1] "In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms. Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts,these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a differentmodel. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model." Source: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c342ee809620.pdf#page=13&search=%22light%22 https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...
- solenoid0937 3mo agoThey undid this after the backlash
- espeed 3mo agoLook at the date. That's from after they said they reverted it, and it's a different model. The point is trust. They've shown their willingness to do so, how will you know?"
- flyingshelf 3mo ago[flagged]
- brazukadev 3mo agothat is exactly why downvote exist.
- AnimalMuppet 3mo agoThat is part of why downvotes exist. They also exist for personal attacks, off topic tangents, posts that don't make sense, trolling, advertisements, AI generated content, and other such things we don't want to see here. But "downvote for disagreement" is a legitimate use. I personally tried to tell someone that it wasn't, and I got corrected by dang.
- naturalmovement 3mo ago> But "downvote for disagreement" is a legitimate use. This made me realize it's a waste of one's time to write thoughtful, informative, educational posts only to have them buried and downvoted by man-children. If we go by empirical evidence alone, it's a more effective use of time making Reddit-quality quips.
- AnimalMuppet 3mo agoDepends. Do you want points, or do you want to say what you have to say? And, there have been times when I have upvoted something I disagreed with, because it made me think.
- brazukadev 3mo agoif you are writing things to get blessed by votes, your incentive might be in the wrong place to begin with. As an example, my point that it is fine to downvote for disagreement got a few downvotes. Ironic, no?
- petcat 3mo agoNobody cares about this temporary "ban" by the US government. If anything it only increased the mystique of the two models. I think Europe and Canada are just happy not to be frozen out of AI access completely at this point.
- andy99 3mo agoAll the discussion this week have been about GLM, Qwen, etc. Both over 1000 comments in the last couple days. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48709670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48709670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48721903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48721903 Of course Anthropic is still relevant, but people have realized they’re not special, and between this and the ID verification thing, they’ve given up a ton of their relevance vs a month ago.
- datakan 3mo ago[flagged]
- musha68k 3mo agoAs everyone knows, Kool-Aid is also just mostly water. I work in AI / infrastructure and I have never seen as much interest towards investing into sovereignty by actual deciders. Thankfully, at this point I can't see any flip-flopping / change of messaging stopping that train. In CA/EU over the last ~15 years, one used to be perceived as a bit of a "weird systems person" by just proposing alternatives to the big hyperscalers. So the Trump administration, hands-down, has been the greatest ally here. In tandem, I was hoping Anthropic would be keeping "dangerously capable" models banned from "evil Chinese distillers" for as long as possible.
- modriano 3mo agoI used Fable 5 for maybe 10 hours in the window when it was available. It was much better than Opus 4.8. And I have found the Opus models to be excellent, but Fable 5 was cranking out incredible research on some data sources I wanted to plumb into my project. I wouldn't personally pay API pricing for it for my personal projects, but I bet it's going to be absolutely slammed with usage for the next month+.
- Sammi 3mo agoI'm a small software business owner in Europe. I have to assume my competition is willing to pay for any business advantage they can get. And so I also have to pay for the SOTA model, whatever it is.
- 1over137 3mo agoNonsense. Do you buy state of the art pens, pencils, printers, paper, computers, disks, etc.? No. You buy whatever is the best value for the case at hand. That’s often not the SOTA option.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- admax88qqq 3mo agoSure but that's orthogonal. Yes you use the right tool for the job. But if the job requires the best intelligence you can get with an LLM, then you use that. Taking as an assumption that the quality of your product is a function of the quality of the inference you are using: if you use an inferior model because "what if it gets export controlled again" and your competitors don't, then your competitors are likely to win. If you don't need frontier models for you job then this is all moot, but the thread started with > You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model Which is silly. HN likes to roleplay bringing everythgin "business critical" in house because sometimes vendors mess up. Self host, don't use the cloud, run open models locally, built redundant supply chains in case of another covid, etc etc. Sometimes the risk is real, but most of the time the risk is rare and the cost of an interruption event is less than the cost of bringing everything in house or using lower quality vendors "just in case"
- Sammi 3mo agoArtists that need the best quality output use the best pens and papers. Call me a coding artist then haha. But seriously I don't have the time for anything less than SOTA.
- brazukadev 3mo ago
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- fhub 3mo agoThis won't age well. You just need to code in a way that has fallbacks. Whether that is to older models, different companies. It's going to be a commodity (if it isn't already).
- boc 3mo ago> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Yes 1000%, please, all my European competition please don't use mythos whatever you do it's total USA trash and the Chinese models work better anyway.
- well_ackshually 3mo ago[flagged]
- satvikpendem 3mo agoRead the guidelines, you can make your point without calling people "suckers". > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- notrealyme123 3mo agoPlease elaborate, I don't understand. Why is it good if they give their money to China?
- rcxdude 3mo agoI think they're being sarcastic (the implication being they want their competitors using the worse models)
- afavour 3mo agoWouldn’t you just have fallbacks? Today’s frontier models are just better than the other models, they don’t really have a ton of entirely unique abilities that can’t be replicated with more time and effort. So you use the frontier model, then when you can’t you accept things are less efficient. The alternative (right now) is to be less efficient all the time, I don’t see any advantage to that.
- theptip 3mo agoYeah. It’s not the end of the world. But, it is a big own goal, because once you invest in building evals for your internal use-case, 1) it’s easier to switch your model to whatever is cheapest, and 2) it’s way easier to fine-tune an oss model. Evals are annoying to build and most companies were fine to rest on vibes. Now many companies have to do the work for insurance.
- futureshock 3mo agoI think this is black and white thinking. Fable and US AI is not unique technology. It’s just marginally better than open source tech at 10 times the price. You can swap out the models at will, they are pretty much fungible. If your use case can pay for a best in class model then you will pay for it no matter the bogeymen. If your best in class model becomes unavailable, you switch to the next best model for a very minor performance degradation. I really doubt this will deter anyone from using American AI.
- internet2000 3mo ago> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Yes I can!
- softwaredoug 3mo agoThe real problem is the White House just making up the rules as it goes. No laws. No predictably for the markets. A week or so pause from seemingly legitimate cyber security concerns isn’t cause for panic. But it should be backed by laws that describe what that process should be. That would put the market at ease
- catigula 3mo agoThere’s no optimal answer. The reality is this is world-ending technology and absolutely nobody knows what to do or can even agree that the problem exists.
- blooalien 3mo ago> "The reality is this is world-ending technology and absolutely nobody knows what to do or can even agree that the problem exists." The reality is that the "people in power" believe it is "world-ending technology" and will therefore use it in world-ending ways. People are absolutely 100% the danger here, not the technology.
- blurbleblurble 3mo agoPhotosynthesis once ended the world
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- cmrdporcupine 3mo agoThe rule is, you pay the toll at the bridge or you don't get to pass.
- recursivegirth 3mo agoBetter to fix it now than tomorrow.
- sieabahlpark 3mo ago[dead]
- satvikpendem 3mo agoNah, people will still pay, as many if not most consumers truly do have a short memory. And like other comments say, imagine everyone is using Fable and you are not, you will quickly fall behind, per the Red Queen hypothesis.
- toddmorey 3mo agoI predict we all be using the hell out of fable until the next great model comes around and in two weeks we won’t be talking about the export controls anymore. We just don’t have the attention span. Nobody should be putting loadbearing weight on Amazon or Microsoft with their ruthless monopoly ambitions, yet here we are
- rvz 3mo ago> I predict we all be using the hell out of fable until the next great model comes around and in two weeks we won’t be talking about the export controls anymore. Until it goes down, or Anthropic raises prices again. Fable is already expensive to use compared to GLM and they want you to use the API as much as possible so you get a worse deal.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoWhy would you compare Fable to GLM? What a bizarre comparison. They're at least two generations/tiers of intelligence apart. GLM is great and I use it often but it might as well be Sonnet when compared to Fable.
- blints 3mo agoMost companies do not model themselves as "building on [AI model du jour]" yet. They model themselves as building products with those tools, which they consider as relatively substitutable.
- deadbabe 3mo agocomposer 2.5 is all you really need don’t be so dramatic
- kcb 3mo agoLLMs are still easily replaceable. If the SOTA frontier model provides meaningful impact for your critical business function, then worse case you flip the switch to the next most capable model.
- Art9681 3mo agoUnequivocally false. Models have different behaviors, parameters, tool calling templates, etc. The providers publish extensive documentation on all of this. Yes, you can take the quick way and swap a model, but it will not run at its full potential until you adapt your workflows to it.
- Marha01 3mo agoOr you can use universal harness that is not tied to a specific model (there are many available now, such as OpenCode, Pi..).
- Art9681 3mo agoNo nation is going to willingly release a model that can be used against it. Not even China. The moment they have a Mythos class model, they will go through the same process. The AmericanCorp models are far ahead of any other models so we see this process unfolding through that lens. No Mythos class model will be allowed to be legally hosted for download on any service. All powerful nations will ban this since safeguards are not guaranteed by shady service providers running these models. For the Chinese first party providers, they will be forced to implement the same process and safeguards, and they will not be allowed to release the model weights to the public. Why? Because no sane nation is going to put that kind of capability in the hands of the public only for the public to use that power against that nations best interests. Save this comment. It is prophesy.
- simonw 3mo agoNot great news for nations that want to secure their software.
- jacksonastone 3mo agoFeels like a leap. This kind of move was always possible. It's possible China stops publishing their frontier too. US could lock down access to Nvidia latest hw of scale even if you intended to do open models. Then what? Say amd or bust? The best you could do going solo (i.e no nation-state interference) is tiny stuff that you can run on commercial stuff. But that is seriously limited / slow in comparison. You either have to do dumb and fast, or smart and slow IME for these self-hosted things that aren't on the beefy racks.
- benfortuna 3mo agoThe real answer is you should never build your business on ANY specific model. As usual avoid lock-in and switch when you need to.
- Aurornis 3mo ago> 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. The switching costs of changing LLM providers is as low as it gets. All the individuals and startups I know try different models all of the time, even down to the level of choosing which provider to use based on the task. Bigger companies move slower but only because they have lawyers and teams negotiating contracts, not because there is a technical reason that it's hard to switch. Companies have dealt with supply chain unpredictability by having multiple providers and switching between them since forever. It's infinitely easier to switch LLM providers than it is to deal with physical supply chain uncertainty.
- miki123211 3mo agoExactly! Even if you won't be able to use some model tomorrow, you can still make money by using it today! And in the age of limited compute, spiky workloads and constant outages, building a mechanism to fallback to a weaker model when your primary choice isn't available is smart anyway.
- PeterStuer 3mo agoFor real production I find the switching cost is not as trivial as you portray. Even going to a new model version in the same model family, say GPT-4o to GPT-5.2, a transition I just finished on a not too complicated application, requires extensive retesting and tweaking of prompts, guardrails and parameters.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoThe EU has totally and utterly failed when it comes to frontier AI. They are out of the running, they won't catch up in time for superintelligence. There literally is not enough compute for sale in the world for them to do so. They crippled their own domestic entities with the AI Act. (see the Mistral CEO's rant.) If you want to use frontier models until then, you're gonna use what's available, and that's US models.
- rightbyte 3mo agoNot doing anything and avoiding the mania as much as possible seem to be a winning move.
- solenoid0937 3mo agoNot if it prevents you from reaching superintelligence. Then you just become the defacto subject of whichever country gets there first. But hey, at least you got more regulation passed along the way!
- rightbyte 3mo agoIf that is the scenario there is no way the EU, a trade union, can compete anyway so why bother.
- reacharavindh 3mo agoAll this will fly until a competitor from outside the US releases a “freedom” model that is even 90% as capable as Fable was without its shackles. But, as a frustrated EU resident lamenting a lack of European option(Mistral is just not competitive enough), I will spread my money towards the Chinese models as well. Thank you Murica! You achieved your soft power by pushing us towards the Chinese :-) This protectionism and hypocrisy (free markets and freedom!! Until it is us who needs to practice what we preach) is so tiring. I wish European nations would come together closer and put their differences aside and realise larger things together. Become the new power that the US is clearly stumbling away from being.
- vintagedave 3mo ago> Mistral is just not competitive enough Does anyone know why? I was really excited when they emerged, but their models and targets don't seem to be quite in the same market.
- xdertz 3mo agoTheir target market is completely different. Anthropic and OpenAI try to build general AI that wins on all the benchmarks by throwing ungodly amounts of money at it. Mistral focuses on long term b2b contracts and their proposition is that they fine tune their model to your needs with an added bonus of 'not dependent on America' in a politically tumultuous time.
- ghm2199 3mo agoAn so like if a business wanted to home in on one very specific use case that could be hyper optimized by SFT, had really good support for updating and adding new features, on-Prem etc. that’s the kind of market they are in?
- nolok 3mo agoAnother added bonus is that they offer a clear "self hosted" if you want it, you can get the exact same product without sending your queries to them, it's costlier and you need the hardware sure, but between the economic espionnage aspect, the sovereignty aspect, the data safety aspect ... This has teeth in europe.
- hodgehog11 3mo agoYou should not build a business-critical function to rely on a particular proprietary LLM stack period, especially with so many sensible competitors in place now. It's insane to me that this needs to be said. The SOTA frontier models have value elsewhere, not monetarily perhaps, but certainly per user. Quite a few cool things have come out of that brief Fable window. There should be more.
- maxdo 3mo agoAs much as i hate current admin, slowing down advanced model until figure out security impact is a good thing. It's called national interest over commercial one. You didnt loose anything. US customers except a few selected one lost access the same one as EU customers. In a few weeks advanced model got released. So if you decided to bring money to communists you can put whatever rational but not this. Do so , and you will loose your last competitive edge in this domain. ASML. After that EU will become a completely agricultural-only region, since edge is lost almost everywhere else.
- jaapz 3mo ago> 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. I mean, this was already pretty clear before. But it surely didn't help!
- alfiedotwtf 3mo agoGLM 5.2 is the elephant in the room. GLM 6 will probably be a Claude Killer
- BrandoElFollito 3mo agoThe Trump US gave us (Europeans) the kick in the bottom we needed to get the head from the sand. Like never we delibrate specifically on non-US solutions (objectively great) because we realized we are neck deep in US dependence. It is not that it was not known before, we just did not feel the threat. This is why EU companies niw look at our own solution (which are late and will probably suffer from the incompetence and mess of the EU institutions) but another key playet is round the corner, namely China. Trump managed to make us look elsewhere than the US. Thanks for that.
- teekert 3mo agoI don't really trust our EU leaders not to pull the same stunt. So we're back to Marx's "owning your means of productions". Which has always been good advice, whether it's GitHub's recent failings, FaceBook's blocking, or some Google service on their graveyard.
- Wowfunhappy 3mo agoOh come now. Fable was available for less than a week before it was pulled, not enough time to build a business critical function. The government isn't going to pull a model that has been out for a substantial length of time. Or do you also avoid using US-developed encryption? (Okay, I can't predict what crazy crap this particular administration is going to do, but that goes for anything, well beyond AI. I think it's about as likely that they would restrict access to Opus as restrict exporting iPhones, or bomb Greenland, or whatever.)
- cmiles8 3mo ago…except until non-US and non-Chinese companies can match performance this (mostly Europe) is just wishful thinking and sand pounding.
- jitl 3mo agoif you are in competition heavy space where in product LLM productivity provides value, dinosaur thinking like this will get you left behind
- esailija 3mo agoWho is creating business critical function on top of something that is for entertainment purposes only (all providers have equivalent clauses)? AI tools and shovel sellers don't count as they just can just push the entertainment downstream.