/Tech4h ago

Policy Analyst Stresses Deceit In AI Model Capability Debate

324022.2K
Dean W. Ball#390
Original post
Dean W. Ball@deanwball#390inTech

@BlackHC it’s the deceit that matters

Andreas Kirsch 🇺🇦@BlackHC

1. How is this anti-competitive behavior?

It is absolutely within their rights to not make their strongest capabilities available to competitors as part of their product offering

This is parallel to the previous scenario with the government. The public has no right or expectation to the strongest coding abilities from their model

2. The AI safety concern is valid. You don't explain your reasoning. RSI is a risk and people believe that we will see RSI within a year. Mythos might be strong enough to kick this off. Avoiding external RSI loops via Mythos is prudent

8:06 AM · Jun 10, 2026 · 562 Views
Sentiment

Users dismissed claims of deceit in AI model capability debates as openly disclosed information from day one and labeled the argument a cope.

Pos
0.0%
Neg
100.0%
1 comments with sentiment.
Cluster Engagement
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
VIEWS1.6KBOOKMARKS2LIKES13
Dean W. Ball@deanwball

hence why I conceded that exact point! nonetheless, the government was lying when they claimed Anthropic made these threats, as attested by the fact that they don’t make those claims under oath. A suspicion does not justify the policy action the government took. and either way, the point you’re quoting has little to do with this and was instead about the “they say it’s a nuclear weapon so they should expect it to be regulated like a nuclear weapon” line of argument, which I continue to think is fairly thin intellectual gruel. But yes, you were right to mistrust anthropic.

Ben Thompson@benthompson

@deanwball Maybe folks who pushed back on Anthropic's positioning in the Department of War debate actually foresaw *exactly* this type of behavior?

3hViews 1.6KLikes 13Bookmarks 2
RETWEETS1REPLIES2
Ben Thompson@benthompson

You did concede the point in the post I replied to, which is why I replied to it. I do tend to think that affording people one disagrees with more grace at the time of disagreement is probably prudent. To that end, setting aside pedantic points about whatever the original tweet was referring to, I'm not at all shocked by Anthropic's decisions this week, because my analysis at the time was not based on some sort of personal animus or whatever was ascribed to me, but simply incentives and long-run trends. That analysis holds in terms of this decision. People's declarations and promises change, *especially* when they hold themselves to be moral actors. Suggesting that anyone pointing that out is faking their beliefs to make a point risks missing the more important point completely.

3hViews 912Likes 11Bookmarks 2
Franklin@OnlyFranklns

@deanwball @BlackHC “The deceit” and they tell it to everyone on their website on day 1 of the release. This is just a cope of an answer to Andreas’ point

2hViews 19Likes 1
Dean W. Ball@deanwball

I don’t think I suggested you were faking your beliefs. What I suggested is that you were using Dario’s statements about AI risks (which I believed and still believe to be earnest) as scaffolding to say “well, what did you expect.” My observation was not that you were insincere, but instead that I just didn’t find the point very insightful.

3hViews 208Likes 2
Raveesh 折図@raveeshbhalla

@benthompson @deanwball > People’s declarations and promises changes

I was in fact thinking of your past writing as I posted this on capabilities vs intent

3hViews 98