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

351–359 of 359 posts

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

#351

Post by brookst »

palmotea wrote: post #315
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…

> Copyright was never meant to be a moral framework. It was always a practical framework designed to incentivize publishing that would ultimately pass into the public domain. A practical framework that model training breaks. Why publish a resource if it'll just get ingested by a model, and the model maker will get your customers/users instead of you? You're already seeing that with Google, which uses AI Overviews to…

Huh? I’ve bought maybe 100 books this year. They’ve probably all been trained on. How, exactly, did my purchases somehow go to the model companies?

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

#352

Post by brookst »

dragonwriter wrote: post #274
palmotea wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 prop…

> Is that settled law? It seems to be the fairly consistent approach of trial courts addressing the question under different soecific fact patterns in different contexts; its not “settled law” in the sense of nationally binding precedent (which would take either a Supreme Court ruling kr separate appellate rulings in every circuit). > And IMHO, AI training violates the spirit of fair use. It's not really a method of…

Thank you for this bit of well-grounded reasonableness.

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

#353

Post by brookst »

phailhaus wrote: post #159
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…

"Quick scan"? It's a few paragraphs. You can't read a few paragraphs? What's the point of replying when you don't even know what you're replying to?

Many apologies for giving the impression you got.

I should have said: after reading the screed, a quick scan of its assertions and rhetorical techinques made it clear that it’s it serious thinking.

I am sure a rigorous analysis would turn up even more hand waving and lack of nuance. But who has the time to read zealots deeply?

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

#354

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

axegon_ wrote: post #145
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…

They are relying on the same tactics Apple and Tesla used - loyal, fanatical fanbase drowning every legitimate criticism. Their fanatical fanbase is doing the real heavy lifting, not some joint-statement: "I haven't written any code in a year man, this is so good", "you are just a denier that will be irrelevant in 2 months", "you are not knowledgeable on the subject of ai", "you are just a hater" list goes on, I've h…

> They are relying on the same tactics Apple and Tesla used - loyal, fanatical fanbase drowning every legitimate criticism.

I think that's fair. Interestingly enough, I now work for a company with Cursor, which makes it much easier to swap out models. I tried Claude Opus, GPT Sol and Grok for a review and planning task.

Even though I've been a Claude stan since like 2023, I was really, really impressed with GPT. It called out the over-complexity in the proposal really well, and gave recommendations that I preferred. Grok & Claude were mostly equivalent, which was interesting to me.

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

#355

Post by figers »

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…

"been about control and their profit margins."

they have no profit margins haha, it's huge piles of cash on fire...

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

#356

Post by everforward »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #299
everforward wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distills are almost certainly bad for the US economy. AIs promise is undercutting knowledge work, which is our primary export. Manufacturing left ages ago. In theory, if OpenAI/Anthropic win then the US still wins since they’re headquartered here. If open or Chinese models succeed, it undercuts our knowledge work market and that money starts flowing out to inference providers instead of in to US companies and the…

> knowledge work, which is our primary export We export more goods than services [1]. > Manufacturing left America is the second-largest manufacturer in the world by a long shot. > that money starts flowing out to inference providers Where are most of these? [1] https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_p...

> We export more goods than services [1].

We do, we export almost twice the amount of goods. The margins on services are so much better that the majority of the profit from exports is from services. I can’t find a study that has traced export revenue to export profit, but the services sector floats around 50% margins and manufacturing is around 15%. That would ballpark goods export profit around $30B and services around $50B.

> America is the second-largest manufacturer in the world by a long shot.

America is the third most populous country in the world. Normalize by population and we’re pretty middling; America is 53rd in merchandise exports per capita (63rd in overall exports per capita). South Korea exports over double our manufacturing per capita.

> Where are most of these?

The most companies, or where the most tokens are going? If you mean “where are the most tokens going?” it’s probably not the US.

The best data I can think of is OpenRouters usage leaderboards, which probably don’t include enterprise customers, and that’s dire.

You don’t hit a US model until #7 and it’s Nemotron which Nvidia is serving for free. The first US model that actually charges is Opus 4.8 at #9 and it handles about a sixth the traffic of the top model (Mimo-V2.5).

There’s really not a ton keeping inference in the US on a moderate time horizon imo. Tencent has Hy3 up for free right now, all Chinese inference, and it’s doing double the tokens Nemotron and Opus 4.8 are doing combined. For free, via the API.

It might not be China, but their aggressive investments in power generation and green energy make it seem likely. They just need GPUs and they seem to be nearing the point where they can offer them based on the Hy3 inference.

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

#357

Post by Levitz »

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…

>My interests are best served with a competitive selection of open weights models available for my use.

Which is why Chinese companies use people like you.

Sorry for being blunt but if you think this policy would continue in a scenario in which they are hegemonic you are extremely delusional.

Also:

>I'm not going to stop using them just because some other people don't like the country they were developed in.

This is not a serious sentence, but a preposterous, straw-manning assertion to make, and it borders on the insult.

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

#358

Post by spopejoy »

throwa356262 wrote: post #15

"Why it matters: ... The big picture: ... Zoom in:... Zoom out:..." I wonder if they used an American or Chinese LLM to write this article?

The similarity of LLM tone to Axios' house style is more evidence IMO that LLMs have been trained to adopt business/CEO/VC-speak over less "punchy" styles that would be far less annoying (not to mention maybe less identifiable too).

Leaning on overworked metaphors ("load-bearing"), overly-declarative/posturing constructions ("it's not this, it's that"), barefaced sales-y smarm ("you're not wrong!") is the kind of language that takes over the higher up the management inverted-ice-cream-cone you go.

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

#359

Post by Lutzb »

Lutzb wrote: post #321
AlexeyBrin wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the book or the screenplay for the movie with the same name.

It's from the book.

Sorry, meant to say it's from the movie script. Need more sleep.
Post reply on HN