if you point it to the web it got the point, but started treating everything like fiction. so it simply started making up possible scenarios and playing them off as real answers when asked for factual information.

i could not tell what the issue was or how to fix it because the reasoning is encrypted. the obfuscation model spat out something like: 'the user is asking for details about a fictional scenario in which the usa has assassinated the leader of iran'

i really don't like the way big ai companies are going. encrypted thinking, guardrails, adversarial personality, moralizing. it is creating something anti-human.

there are good providers available, i think it should become the standard.

two high quality companies: near.ai tinfoil.sh

10% is uninsurable, priced in with ordinary treatment of risk it suggests that anthropic should be worth zero today. creating that risk would put every executive in jail.

on top of that it would demand under existing laws of conflict, a military campaign to destroy anthropic. that is not optional, it is demanded now to save lives.

hard to make comparisons but we mourned and rembered 9/11 recently. a 10% risk of hundreds of millions dead in 10 years would make anthropic a thousands of times greater threat than al qaeda. many countries would assassinate dario amodei and the leadership of anthropic now, within weeks or months.

actually just on the vague risk of having a nuclear weapon in 10 years, the USA killed ayatollah khamenei, his daughter, his son-in-law, his daughter-in-law and his 14 month old granddaughter. then, they killed over 120 children ages 6-12 by accidentally bombing a school.

in the sense that i would analyse a company, at least, the claim is false. it's not true that ai has a 10% chance of causing human extinction within 10 years.

they are making false claims about the technology they sell.

i have a fairly inflexible approach to that. sure, exaggerate but outright lies about the nature of the product don't work for me.

if that's true, you are wrong.

if that's false, anthropic is dishonest. why trust a dishonest company to be worth anything?

you could compare gpt 5.6 luna. if you did that the same way as before you would get a blended price of $0.17 for luna at AA 38. for baseten it would be $0.20 for v4.1 at AA 40.

assume roughly the same intelligence. on AA openai gets 117tps. baseten gets 284tps. so 18% more expensive but 142% more tps.

the fast mode is again double the cost, roughly same intelligence. so luna in that case would be 70% expensive. take the per task cost and it would still 9% more expensive.

so i think there is something to be said about the efficiency of the model.

5.6 sol ultrafast on cerebras is 750tps, open models readily exceed this. just by using a smaller model cerebras serves qwen 3.8 27b at 1850tps. or even larger models, mimo 2.5 pro was served for a while at 1000tps. and so on. [https://inference-docs.cerebras.ai/models/choose-a-model]

the chinese ai companies have 10% of the total compute resources of the US ones. since the USA tries to stop them from buying nvidia gpus. they maxed out the efficiency.

deepseek v4.1 has engram architecture. it has 550b params instead of 5T+ for astra/fable. it has 8b active instead of potentially hundreds active for astra/fable.

compare input/output/cache: $0.15/$0.60/$0.003 for v4.1 to $10.00/$50.00/$1.00 for astra and $10.00/$50.00/$0.25 for fable.

astra cache reads are over 330 times more expensive.

at the artificial analysis 7:2:1 ratio, deepseek is $0.18/m, fable is $7.18/m, astra is $7.7/m.

but what about intelligence? AA would rate deepseek v4.1 at AA 40, astra is AA 53.

so it cost 4,180% more for 32% more intelligence.

they are serving that at over 250tps at baseten. to get close to that on astra API you are paying double the cost for fast mode.

so it is now 8456% more expensive for a similar speed and 32% more intelligence. 84 times more expensive.

they are more efficient and require less compute for the same thing.

they are ahead in specialized tasks.

they are ahead in areas closed models refuse to answer.

they are ahead in emotional intelligence.

the same logic applies well to the freedom to own and use ai.

empowering the people prevents tyranny.

such freedoms make society less safe. it is better to face the harms caused by a free public than to vest power in the elite, those like dario amodei.

the elite belief that they have a right to paternal rule makes them blind to their fallibility. no individual should have absolute power.

the idea was that anthropic would pause scaling at certain danger levels until it was safe to continue.

the founders called this the 'constitution' of anthropic. they even considered bringing in 3rd parties to monitor it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om2lIWXLLN4]

anthropic scrapped the commitment and chose to continue scaling instead.

those researchers who crowed loudly about their integrity, folded and turned freely like a weathervane in the breeze. it was clear that the facts would bend to the story. here is evan hubinger lying in plain sight: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HzKuzrKfaDJvQqmjh/responsibl...]

let me say it how it is.

- anthropic is the new kleptocracy, responsible for enclosing and monopolising the epistemic commons of all humanity; then selling back the crumbs at monopoly prices.

- anthropic is the driving force for banning open models. they will concentrate power among a malign elite of model owners and favored cronies. this elite will likely oppress the rest of humanity. there will be little to counteract it.

- the leaders of anthropic are driven by pride and arrogance. they are blind to their own hubris. anthropic is careering towards causing untold harm to society and yet will not change course.

nothing that anthropic say at a high level can be trusted. as i write this, anthropic is still scaling.

politicians care about popularity only. this is a matter of natural selection. don't care about popularity=dead.

sam altman is despised, viscerally despised by all ages. model owners are hated by the public.

i wouldn't rule out an investigation or takeover.

this is very coherent in terms of what we know about the company.

we might get something if they tried to cover it up.

putting this amount of power in the hands of so few would require leaders of immaculate moral integrity. what we have in the US at least is an emergent kleptocracy with obvious dark triad traits: sam altman, dario amodei, elon musk, etc. they are malign and will use this power for their own benefit, at the expense of others. ignore pleas of public benefit. look instead at the evidence: infighting, systemic dishonesty, reckless disregard for safety, political lobbying and manipulation, putting power in the hands of the elite few in the guise of safety, using ai in the military to oppress and inflict violence on others.

really to prevent a bad outcome, we would need to act soon enough to prevent the kleptocracy from corrupting politicians and democracy with them. i would ditch the claude or openai subscription and support open models instead, preferably in countries outside the US to prevent global neocolonialism.

did the proof build on the insights:

the influence of an individual text in the training data is deeply weighted by quality, relevance, etc. a high quality proof in advanced mathematics written by a codex user is going to get boosted to the max.

the model is post-trained on prompt material. that is again going to boost it.

the prompt will boost this material specifically. perhaps they even rammed dense maths in particular into the model in post training.

anecdotally i have been able to get near-verbatim copies of original material out of models at inference. the type of work that buckmaster and alpoge fed into openai feels like the exact type of concept that would cause an "aha!" or "but what if?" in chain of thought. in fact i would bet that their work is in the logs.

the likes of astra and fable are thought to be up to 10T parameters in size. i consider it highly plausible that a semantic representation of the euler proof could be pulled out of the model weights in good shape.

what would have happened if they didn't do this? they could have done things the right way. we could celebrate this achievement.

perhaps they could have taken just a few weeks, even, to work out something with buckmaster and apoge.

i am very concerned that this is a glimpse of things to come. a malign elite with powerful ai, who will turn the sublime of technology into barbarity, violence and human oppression.

if sam altman has destroyed openai's public benefit corp with lesser tools why would he aid humanity with even greater power?

as bad academic conduct you may steal someone else's unpublished work, work on it yourself for a bit, and then publish it as your own work. and then threaten the original author!

do you think that the model's proof was unrelated to being fed a solution that was close to completion?

any comment on openai allegedly trying to drop attribution for alpöge and then threatening buckmaster?