Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#31

“Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good…” A bit confused on this part, what model doesn’t have dangerous capabilities?

It seems possible to deliberately not train on some offensive capabilities and still have a very useful model. For example, Opus 5 deliberately did not train on exploiting vulnerabilities, and so performed less well on exploits than Mythos, yet was equally proficient at finding such vulnerabilities, according to the Opus 5 system card in their "OSS-Fuzz" eval [1].

[1]: https://www.securityweek.com/anthropics-opus-5-nears-mythos-...

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#35
Seems like the maximal position he could take compatible with his expressed principles. There’s no way to allow for bioweapon and cyberweapon grade models being open weight if one doesn’t want widespread human damage.

So I cannot disagree with him on the idea. It’s only a matter of degree and whether we’re already there or not. I have $50k in GPUs that incentivizes me to believe we are not.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#37

As expected they will try hard to use government to kill competitors.

Then you did not read it clearly. Edit: Typo

Which of those aren't related to regulation? Preventing Chinese models from entering our market? Using boogeyman 'distillation' as a means to target competitors? Point 3 is literally about ADDING regulation.

Please elucidate things clearly for everyone else.

Post reply on HN