Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#41

Demand #1 is standard political nonsense Demand #2 is hypocritical ladder pulling Demand #3 is contrary to freedom of speech so they can clarify however they like, their position is still a stinker

Yep. > We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations. "We consume all intellectual property for our model but you cannot do the same"

World's greatest IP thieves propose crackdown on IP theft

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#42
Dario has like three 'paranoias' / strong-motivating-concerns

1) LLMs turning into Skynet

2) China as geopolitical competitor

3) Claude being 'distilled' by competitors (this has led Anthropic to cut service to various American companies too from time to time -- OpenAI, xAI etc have been cut off from using Claude for coding in the past)

So this post just reiterates that these 3 concerns fuse together in his mind when thinking about open weight models

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#45

So the argument is basically: This technology is too dangerous so only _we_ should have access to it. We’re the good guys and only we can ensure a safe use of this technology. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

> To summarize my and Anthropic’s position, we have not and are not advocating for a ban on open-weights models as a category. We should instead focus on keeping powerful chips out of authoritarian hands, stopping industrial-scale distillation, and requiring safety testing of all sufficiently capable models, open and closed.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#46

> All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing What happens if a model fails the test? Surely one can use Kimi K3 for evil, somehow or other. What now? "Mandatory safety testing" implies consequences for failing, yet Dario has nothing to say about what the consequences should be. He says he doesn't advocate a ban but it's hard to imagine what his alternative would be if…

Hm, I interpreted it to mean they are more worried about loss of control/misalignment risks rather than misuse?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#48
post #27

Guys. Guys, you got it all wrong. We don't want to ban open-weight models! We just want to ban the competition guys! Very different. -- The ridiculous anthropic/openai strategy of selling shovels at a loss in a gold rush isn't going to play out, and the hilarious thing is that these AI companies are going to create tons of value and _capture none of it_. Their only path to profitability is if they get to capture it a…

[deleted]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#49
post #42

Dario has like three 'paranoias' / strong-motivating-concerns 1) LLMs turning into Skynet 2) China as geopolitical competitor 3) Claude being 'distilled' by competitors (this has led Anthropic to cut service to various American companies too from time to time -- OpenAI, xAI etc have been cut off from using Claude for coding in the past) So this post just reiterates that these 3 concerns fuse together in his mind when…

Is he actually concerned about China being a geopolitical competitor or is that just the most logical position for him to take as CEO of a US corporation with national security implications?
Post reply on HN