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

201–210 of 359 posts

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

#201

Post by gruez »

selectodude wrote: post #186
gruez wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Wait till you hear about Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2007) and Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (2015), both of which ruled that lossy and verbatim copies (respectively) are allowed for for-profit use.

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

#202

Post by LurkandComment »

1) This is going to be like Electric cars. You see how far ahead China is there for commercial viability for a wider consumer base

2) There are many reasons why Anthropic and Open Ai will collapse aside from this.

3) Wait until you have non-China models that are good enough. Hint: they already exist. Microsoft partnering with Mistral is a big red flag for OpenAI and Anthropic.

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

#203

Post by pandinus »

National pride aside, we must decide if competition is good or is it bad. In the west we've been conditioned that competition is good and expect consequences and tradeoffs. In this case we're seeing incumbents trying to lobby government to secure their market share.

People rightfully question if these business models were ever feasible or sustainable to begin with. But isn't that the risk they took? We can certainly recognize that being displaced before realizing profit from your work is like a kick in the pants, but isn't that always supposed to be a possible outcome? I realize that is part of why we have intellectual property rights to reward innovators - but that isn't a universal concept in this global economy.

Which, some might argue, may be the point on the global stage. It is an ideological competition as well.

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

#204

Post by jillesvangurp »

jake-coworker wrote: post #48

Regulation won't beat engineering here. China will continue to release open weight models that are impossible to ban without unprecedented surveillance in Western countries. AI labs need to innovate if they want to win. Open models are capitalism. Ideally Western companies should get more efficient, but if we can't then we should be doing the opposite of regulation, and subsidizing western models.

There's a baby and bathwater situation here. If the US actually starts entertaining protectionism here, it might push most of the rest of the world (including places like the EU, India, South America, etc.) away from Openai and Anthropic towards other models not controlled by the US (which is mostly models made in China currently).

OpenAI and Anthropic kind of need that revenue to justify their current valuations. The US market by itself is too small for that. And if that money dries up, it's going to be much harder for them to maintain their technical head start. The US starting to impose all sorts of restrictions here would not be helpful.

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

#205

Post by palmotea »

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.

> 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.

Is that settled law? I doubt it.

And IMHO, AI training violates the spirit of fair use. It's not really a method of criticism or commentary. It's a system to use people's own work to undermine their ability to economically subsist on that work.

Though how about this for a proposed exception: you can AI train on anything as fair use: only if release your model and weights public domain open source.

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

#206

Post by ryandrake »

echelon wrote: post #20
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #7

You know what? That is fine based merely on recent openai/hugginface incident ( after all, they needed open weights model to actually troubleshoot it, because 'safe' one did not let em ). Let it all burn:D edit: And lets hope we learn a lesson.

I would rather we not lose the AI race so idiotically. Winning the AI race means letting OpenAI and Anthropic face market forces. Edit: Clearly other companies are doing well. ElevenLabs, Runway, FAL, RunPod, CoreWeave, Lambda, BaseTen, Lovable. These are real companies that didn't raise absurd amounts of capital. They've grown revenues at a solid clip, provide real value, and didn't go off the deep end with fundrais…

It would be nice if AI turned out to not be yet another winner-take-all technology "race" that had to be won by one company.

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

#207

Post by globalnode »

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…

I agree with you. I read recently Anthropic had to pay 1.5B in fines for stealing copyrighted works. You know, if us normies get caught stealing, we go to jail and don't get to keep the loot, yet these companies get a slap on the wrist and keep everything. Its tragically hilarious.

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

#208

Post by 65 »

throwa356262 wrote: post #32
ForHackernews wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, that's Axios house style for their readership of extremely busy/important illiterates.

You are right, all their recent articles are written this way :( Still, if feels very LLM-y with their short sentences, definitive statements and a love for lists when none is needed. On the other hand, maybe Axios was such dominant component in the training dataset that now every LLM speaks like this...

Axios has had this style for years and years, before ChatGPT came out.

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

#209

Post by solenoid0937 »

el_io wrote: post #127
Tenoke wrote: post #91

I am very pro open source models - I use them every single day.. But we obviously don't want everyone to have capabilities like and beyond what caused the huggingface incident in every domain , so it's not like it all comes from bottom line cynicism.

Then you're not very pro open source models.

"I'm pro self defense but don't want everyone to have an ICBM."

"Then you're not pro self defense!"

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

#210

Post by JumpCrisscross »

“This is a point that bears repeating: because U.S. open weight model makers must follow the frontier labs’ terms of service, they (1) are worse than Chinese alternatives and (2) end up distilling the distillation, just with a detour through Chinese labs. Wouldn’t it be better if western open weight model makers could go to the source?

…

The U.S. should pass a law that (1) makes explicit that collecting data for training models is fair use, and (2) bars terms of service that forbid distillation, for U.S. companies at a minimum. Stopping distillation — which is literally just querying the API — is nearly impossible; the U.S. should go the other way and lean into a new copyright policy that both indemnifies the labs and also guarantees that what they learned fuels further innovation for everyone else” [1].

[1] https://stratechery.com/2026/whos-afraid-of-chinese-models/

Post reply on HN