Comment by drawnwren
17 hours ago
Yeah, if you're arguing that "this, according to anthropic, existentially dangerous model has only had its safeguards partially circumvented so we shouldn't step in" ... it's hard for me to take you seriously?
Put another way, the thing we are all concerned with is the complete circumvention of safeguards that is normally possible with llms. If you _aren't_ arguing that this isn't possible, you're not engaging in discussing the the thing that is concerning to regulators or those discussing the regulation.
Im pointing out what is the argument. You were saying it is something different.
Now you add the word "complete". Anthropic IS arguing _complete_ circumventing is NOT possible.
A disappointing trend is to frame the opposing argument in extreme terms rather than engaging with the substance of the assertion.
The latter portion is grand standing about how incredulous the commenter is that someone might trust an LLM company about the strength of their harnesses' if-then-else statements for request routing.
Why bother with an unsubstantial comment?