Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 359 posts

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#181

Post by Alpha3031 »

Levitz wrote: post #131
stego-tech wrote: post #34

And to think I got warned in another post that I need to be nicer/more professional in discussing this topic. Yeah. Nah. Bringing out the same drum I’ve been banging for years now , these companies have never actually cared about ensuring safe AI, regulation, or ensuring it benefits all humanity. It has always, always , been about control and their profit margins. Their actions have never reflected any sort of positi…

Yes they only care about money. That's what corporations usually do. And I'll take that 10 times out of 10 over China's role in all of this, which is specifically to disrupt and sabotage the rest. I can trust Anthropic and OpenAI to have economic interests. I can't trust the same from Chinese companies, which I can actually trust to have geopolitic interests.

As we all know, the US is entirely free of geopolitical interests, which is why there was a US–Japan trade war in the late 80s.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#182

Post by Yokohiii »

andy99 wrote: post #66

I’m in a bubble so I may not see the big picture, but I feel like these guys are completely destroying any kind of credibility they had. Anthropic especially has this arrogant, “we’re smarter than you”, communication style, and acts like they’re serving some higher purpose (to the point of absurdity in some cases like “model welfare”) - I think part of all this might be the EA roots but I’m not sure. But then they ge…

I think we are in a chaotic state because we don't know how the whole AI thing will play out longer term. FUD tactics are a choice in this phase to take advantage of the public perception. You have to assume that especially many non technical people are quite concerned and would probably agree to any regulation to make them feel safer.

Of course it also reveals how unethical these actors are.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#183

Post by embedding-shape »

amarka wrote: post #172
embedding-shape wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal isn't "making it difficult to start a business", the goal is to protect people, meaning things affecting the public are more controlled, slower and more bureaucratic to initiate. The slowness is a feature and there really isn't any "difficulty" in starting a business, it just takes time to fill out papers and wait for approvals and what not.

"the slowness is a feature" - I grew up in eastern block of Europe in the 80-90s, this type of sentiment has a real "the party loves you, this is for your own good" vibe.

Difference in opinion isn't authoritarianism or means you live a dictatorship. Slowness is actually a feature in lots of societies, for example in Spain where I live, for better or worse. Your comment gives of a "so you hate waffles?" vibe.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#184

Post by john_strinlai »

Varelion wrote: post #143
stego-tech wrote: post #34

And to think I got warned in another post that I need to be nicer/more professional in discussing this topic. Yeah. Nah. Bringing out the same drum I’ve been banging for years now , these companies have never actually cared about ensuring safe AI, regulation, or ensuring it benefits all humanity. It has always, always , been about control and their profit margins. Their actions have never reflected any sort of positi…

Warned by YComb? I got something similar when discussing Flock. Tech companies, in the end of the day, will stand together to suppress dissent under the guise of anything nearing plausible deniability.

>Warned by YComb? I got something similar when discussing Flock.

i was curious, because stego-tech also misrepresented the reason for their mod warning, and yours is the same.

you didnt get a warning because you were "discussing flock". its because you made a boring comment about "oligarch slushfund to pay bots" for "pro-flock astroturfing". that's not "discussing flock", its vague accusations of astroturfing.

its like, super duper clear in the guidelines that if you suspect astroturfing or botting that you should email the mods so they can investigate it.

dang has some pithy line about "mod less, not more when there is a relation to ycomb" and its true. ive ripped on flock plenty of times (fuck flock!). just put some actual substance in your comments.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#185

Post by rowanG077 »

brookst wrote: post #90
stego-tech wrote: post #34

And to think I got warned in another post that I need to be nicer/more professional in discussing this topic. Yeah. Nah. Bringing out the same drum I’ve been banging for years now , these companies have never actually cared about ensuring safe AI, regulation, or ensuring it benefits all humanity. It has always, always , been about control and their profit margins. Their actions have never reflected any sort of positi…

The thing about screaming and waving your arms is it makes it hard for people to connect with the argument. A quick scan shows a lack of rigor that usually points towards zealotry rather than a reasoned position: you imply that models are only trained on copyrighted work, you don’t address the ridiculous “copyright forever, nothing goes public domain” policies that got us to this place, you don’t distinguish between…

Get real, you think LLMs got to where they are by training on 80 year old works? Your point is technically true, just basically irrelevant for LLM training.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#186

Post by selectodude »

gruez wrote: post #167
palmotea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don’t address the ridiculous “copyright forever, nothing goes public domain” policies that got us to this place 1. You're mischaracterizing and exaggerating the policies to falsely support your point. Things go into the public domain all the time: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2026/ . 2. It's not like the model companies had the attitude "oh copyright is too long, we disagree on the term." Their…

>We will take it, we won't pay for it, and we will use it to replace you and make ourselves rich The whole point of fair use (which courts have so far ruled AI training is) is that you don't have to ask for permission or pay them for it.

When you realize that LLMs are “just” extremely efficient lossy data compression, it’s hard for me to see how it’s anything other than taking people’s shit, putting it into a gigantic zip file, and letting people search against it.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#187

Post by solenoid0937 »

wolttam wrote: post #5

No way this can go wrong for the U.S. economy! Do everything you can to protect the existing incumbents, pay no mind to the wider consequences. Winning strategy.

Distills are bad for the US economy because they compress margins that otherwise go to pushing the frontier. You'd see model progress dramatically slowed if US companies had to compete on distills.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#188

Post by AlexandrB »

rootlocus wrote: post #130
StevenWaterman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> model welfare I shouldn't get in arguments about this stuff online, but have you actually sat down and thought about this in-depth? It's pretty normal to have a gut reaction that this is insane, but it's worth thinking about. If we replaced every neuron in your brain, one by one, with a silicon equivalent, would you stop being conscious? At what point? Would you be able to tell? If yes, what about if we took those…

There's a reason we have expressions like "train of thought". Going from one idea to another is pretty much how we think. Much like going from one token to another.

Not true in 2 particular ways:

1. "Eureka moments" often pop up almost out of nowhere, this suggests that there's processing going on at a non-verbal, non-token level.

2. The fact that we think in language is an evolutionarily new phenomenon. Plenty of "smart" animals are capable of complex behaviors and learning without any kind of language "tokens". There's no reason to think that human reasoning is different and somehow confined to "tokens" instead of being a broader system. Consider language itself. The human species created it somehow out of nothing. We "tokenized" our cognition to be able to communicate. But I would argue this was driven by our social needs, not our cognitive needs and the human ability to think does not require tokens at all.

Edit:

Finally, consider how limited language really is. Even for something simple, like pain, we don't even have a way to communicate objective reality to another person. We can say "it hurts" and use metaphors: "stabbing pain", "dull pain", etc. But the experience of pain can't really be communicated to another person. It's even worse once you remove non-verbal cues like facial expressions and body language - pain just becomes a vague concept on the page.

Meanwhile, our brain is perfectly capable of perceiving the slightest changes in pain and altering our behavior accordingly. Now extend this to other human experience.

I think the best analogy here is that treating human cognition as a problem of processing "tokens" is confusing the map for the territory.

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#189

Post by jzebedee »

brookst wrote: post #90
stego-tech wrote: post #34

And to think I got warned in another post that I need to be nicer/more professional in discussing this topic. Yeah. Nah. Bringing out the same drum I’ve been banging for years now , these companies have never actually cared about ensuring safe AI, regulation, or ensuring it benefits all humanity. It has always, always , been about control and their profit margins. Their actions have never reflected any sort of positi…

The thing about screaming and waving your arms is it makes it hard for people to connect with the argument. A quick scan shows a lack of rigor that usually points towards zealotry rather than a reasoned position: you imply that models are only trained on copyrighted work, you don’t address the ridiculous “copyright forever, nothing goes public domain” policies that got us to this place, you don’t distinguish between…

I think you can realize how ludicrous it is to invoke 80 year old copyrights for a product whose main use case is coding. How much code from 1946 was it lawfully ingesting?

Re: OpenAI and Anthropic unite against open-weight AI risks to their bottom line

#190

Post by Ekaros »

bloppe wrote: post #179
palmotea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don’t address the ridiculous “copyright forever, nothing goes public domain” policies that got us to this place 1. You're mischaracterizing and exaggerating the policies to falsely support your point. Things go into the public domain all the time: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2026/ . 2. It's not like the model companies had the attitude "oh copyright is too long, we disagree on the term." Their…

They're attitude is more "this is fair use" which, according to all precedent, is probably true in most cases (unless the models actually start regurgitating huge parts of the Copyrighted material without a license). Of course, distillation is also fair use under Copyright law. Copyright was never meant to be a moral framework. It was always a practical framework designed to incentivize publishing that would ultimate…

Certainly in Europe there is view that author has moral rights over their work. And the view has affected how international copyright framework operates.
Post reply on HN