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

261–270 of 359 posts

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

#261

Post by JumpCrisscross »

brazukadev wrote: post #253
solenoid0937 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

bad for the US economy but good for the World economy.

> bad for the US economy

Almost certainly not in the long term. If AI is a productivity enhancer, which I think we have evidence for, then the American economy’s heft (and continuing dynamism) get a tailwind. The minority of the new, leveraged economy getting hit will be a short-term painful adjustment, but it need not be anything more.

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

#262

Post by metadat »

Lutzb wrote: post #138
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…

ARTHUR I'm sorry -- did you just say you need my brain? BENJY MOUSE Yes. To extract the question. ARTHUR You can't have my brain. I'm using it. FRANKY MOUSE Barely. BENJY MOUSE We can replace it if you think it's important. An electronic brain maybe. FRANKY MOUSE A simple one should suffice. Who would know the difference? ARTHUR I would! FRANKY MOUSE No, you wouldn't. We could program you not to.

Source? This is gold.

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

#264

Post by selectodude »

gruez wrote: post #233
selectodude wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. is a good one too because Internet Archive got the exact opposite outcome in court for doing the exact same thing. I recognize the bullshit, I just call it out to keep myself sane.

>Internet Archive got the exact opposite outcome in court for doing the exact same thing No, it's not the same thing. Contrary to what many people think, "fair use" isn't something you can invoke to do whatever copyright infringement you want. The judge is supposed to consider several factors, one of which is whether the work was "transformative". In google's case it was offering search results. Internet archive was…

That’s not true. 1. Libraries have used Authors Guild as legal cover to lend out ebooks for paper books that they own. 2. Google provided access to the whole book, that’s why they got sued.

If I run a book through AES, that’s pretty transformative too!

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

#265

Post by gruez »

dTal wrote: post #226
bloppe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Was it really "designed to incentivize" anything? Or was it introduced to protect a powerful, influential business model? Looking at how laws are passed now, I know which explanation I find more congruent.

It's literally in the constitution:

> [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

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

#266

Post by wokkel »

echelon wrote: post #14

Fuck these two companies. Fuck Sam and Dario. These fucking assholes want to selfishly sink our country and our competitiveness because their valuations are tied to a thin little moat, and they moronically raised way too much capital. They think regulation can save them, when in actuality it will doom all of us. Go to hell, OpenAI and Anthropic. Call your senators right now.

I don't think senators will do a lot seeing the state of us politics at the moment (European perspective).

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

#267

Post by dd8601fn »

commoner wrote: post #193
Levitz wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have no reason to care about the interests of these companies. My interests are best served with a competitive selection of open weights models available for my use. OpenAI has the year-old GPT-OSS, and Anthropic has never released any open weights models. Meanwhile, other companies are delivering a steady stream of high-quality open weights models every month, and I'm not going to stop using them just because some…

I can’t say this enough…

Expect the tap on open models to slow and eventually disappear.

They don’t exist for altruistic reasons. It’s peculiar to current conditions.

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

#268

Post by adrian_b »

jrflo wrote: post #79
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…

No large company has ever cared about anything other than the financials, this is not specific to AI.

Sadly, this has become very true during the last decades.

However, a half of century ago there were a non-negligible number of large companies for which there existed more important priorities than the financials, e.g. reputation and customer satisfaction, for instance Hewlett-Packard (which was something extremely different from those who have inherited this name).

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

#269

Post by timmytokyo »

prodigycorp wrote: post #212
solenoid0937 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It also doesn't seem to know what it wants. When Trump blocks Fable "there needs to be proper legislation, not an authoritarian controlling this". When an article discusses the legislative process "F' these companies!".

Consider that HN is not a single person with a single point of view.

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

#270

Post by mring33621 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #219
jacobgold wrote: post #44

Humanity discovered a technique for compressing the world's information into a few files that fit on a USB drive. It's just insane that some people thought they'd get to be the only ones who get to possess them.

This is such a naive take. What happens when "those files on a USB drive" turn into a zero day button that can harm millions of people? What happens when they help authoritarian dictatorships build nuclear weapons? What happens when they teach average people the steps needed to make a bioweapon at home? Every society restricts dangerous capabilities at the end of the day, because most people realize there is a crosso…

Some very bad people already have a "button that can harm millions of people".

Some more very bad people are building them.

This democratizes that ability.

Might be good. Might be bad. Might be both.

Fuck you for thinking you know better than everyone else.

Post reply on HN