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

341–350 of 359 posts

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

#341

Post by usef- »

nozzlegear wrote: post #305
usef- wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should they do instead? As far as I can tell from their actions they (Anth) are true believers about safety

My contention is that, while they've converted and employ a legion of true believers (Dario may even be one himself), the veneration and flagellation at the altar of safety and alignment is conveniently self-serving. It demands constant scrutiny, because it only serves one single goal in the end: profit via regulatory capture.

People _hate_ when they talk about safety. It doesn't seem like it's helping them.

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

#343

Post by llelouch »

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…

Huh i don't get it? They have been consistent about regulation and safety. Before they were in the lead the wanted the same thing? Openai on the other hand supported Illinois SB 3444. They seem to actually want regulatory capture.

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

#344

Post by llelouch »

abroszka33 wrote: post #30

There is nothing these big tech companies hate more than competition. It took Google, Apple and M$ long long time to establish their monopolies. OpenAI and Anthropic are trying to speed run it.

Anthropic wanted regulation before and after taking the lead. They have always been consistent.

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

#345

Post by llelouch »

maxloh wrote: post #125

It is ridiculous that OpenAI is a non-profit and Anthropic is a PBC, yet both actively resist open access to AI. This hinders human progress rather than serving it.

At least for nathropic they don't care if it's open or closed. They just want regulation for something of certain capabilites. Demis hassabis wants this as well. I don't get whats the issue. Sometimes it feels like people are fighting a strawman.

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

#346

Post by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe »

WarmWash wrote: post #259
aeve890 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean ~35% ?

I mean if you cut out the bottom 65% and the top 1% (but perhaps even top 5%) of americans, you are left with a group of generally affluent people who are the actual backbone of the US economy. These people work white collar career jobs, own houses, own stocks, have retirement on track, college debt paid off or soon to be, good health insurance, go on vacations, drive new(ish) cars, let their instagram impulse buying…

Reminds me of the speech "America is not the greatest country in the world" from the show Newsroom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk

It was made 14 years ago and I don't think the US improved on any of those statistics.

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

#348

Post by tim333 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #323
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…

In a world where Dario and Sam genuinely believe that AI represents both an existential risk and an existential opportunity for humanity, what do you think they’d be doing differently?

Originally the idea of OpenAI was to open source cutting edge AI so one or two large corporations couldn't monopolise it. They seem have flipped to the opposite.

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

#349

Post by brookst »

palmotea wrote: post #140
brookst wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

I’m always astounded when someone literally argues against nuance.

I think that AI companies should, and often don’t, pay for training material. I also think that perpetual copyright has so weakened IP holders’ moral position that especially the larger IP-centric corporations have nobody to blame but themselves.

And sure, a tiny dribble of stuff enters public domain, either because estates don’t work to maintain copyright or because the duration is so ridiculous that even megacorps can’t tilt the playing field further (see: Steamboat Willie, released 1928, public domain 2024).

Sorry, but 96 year copyright terms are insane.

Now, come back with support for returning copyright to its original max of 28 years, or even the extended 42 years, I’ll argue for harsher treatment of violations for recent works.

It’s a complex system. And I’m not willing to demonize one side when the other has been so abusive for so long, no matter how many times you say “suck” and “fuck” as if that somehow strenghens an argument (hint: it doesn’t)

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

#350

Post by brookst »

adrian_b wrote: post #254
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…

"This is fair use" is just their public defense, but obviously they have never given a thought about this when hoarding data, as shown by the modest 1.5B fine of Anthropic, which they can now write off as a normal business cost. I am completely willing to accept that "this is fair use" for any company that publishes the LLM weights, i.e. the result of processing all the copyrighted work, because they have performed a…

So, how do you feel about phone books?
Post reply on HN