Post #4144710

@mttaggart@infosec.exchange I think the issue is more around the infeasibility of managing an embargo that large with so many stakeholders with conflicting requirements. It's similar to the problem of closed CTI sharing circles. You know that the Trump regime is going to demand access, and also have opinions about who else gets access and who doesn't (mostly revolving around who grovels and pays them enough). And other governments with sometimes-conflicting interests will also demand access. And defense contractors, spy agencies, law enforcement, research institutions, infosec vendors, software vendors, etc. If your circle of who gets access to frontier models with unrestricted guardrails gets so large that it includes the security team from a company like Hugging Face, then who DOESN'T get access? You're maybe talking about millions of people by that point. How would you vet any of them? You'd need to stand up a whole department of 24x7 support personnel dedicated to managing this kind of access, probably subcontracting with a major data broker for identity verification, plus active monitoring for abuse. And if we've learned anything at all from the Flock scandal, it should be that a user base that large is going to have a LOT of people engage in misconduct. At least some of that misconduct will render the embargo functionally useless.