91–100 of 1001 posts
> We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China This is so short-sighted given that the US needs China equipment for.. everything. They are part of the supply chain needed for building the machines that build these very chips.
Now they have their own chips and most of Nvidia product line is internally banned.
"No guys, Anthropic actually loves open weight models!" Yeah, and Microsoft famously loves Linux. Sure. http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/micros...
No "love" of open weights asserted, just acknowledgement of value.
(And their call for safety was for both open and closed models.)
Begging, ugly crying, spitting for that sweet-sweet regulatory capture. These nerds need to be bullied harder.
Note the hedging against 'dangerous capabilities'. Undoubtedly, all the useful ones trigger this condition in Anthropic's eyes. The rest of the post is filled with similar weasel-wording. Make no mistake, this absolutely confirms that Anthropic is against open models in the sense that any reasonable person understands them.
The way the rest of the post unabashedly appeals to the current US administration's China hysteria is hilarious, and not at all subtle.
I guess we'll see about all the doomsaying here, won't we? Kimi K3 is frontier-level, and there's no stopping it now. As far as the world is concerned, anyway. If the US wants to kneecap itself that's another matter.
> Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. > All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing. Yeah, this is anthropic advocating for a ban on open weight models. Who runs this test? What happens if this test is too costly or the administrator refuses to allow certain people to participate. This is exactly how the US has banned goods in the past, by r…
> Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models.
This is not an unqualified never. The very next sentence makes a qualified statement: "Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good". That prompts the question, what about ones which do have "dangerous capabilities"? Are they not a public good? If not, then should they be banned? Who gets to decide on the definitions of these terms?
[flagged]
[flagged]
> The NSA and the CIA with the same models, on the other hand, would use them exclusively for the good of the common man. has anyone ever made this absurd argument? the real argument is that CCP will leverage AI against US interests, which is obvious. it's weird how so many people pretend that they are citizens of the world and above it all.
See, the Snowden Leaks.
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.
I'm sure he didn't mean just a "lobotomized to be worse than Anthropic products" badge for the test-passing models.
If a ban is the implied consequence of failing his "safety" tests, that means that Anthropic was and currently is advocating for a ban on some open-weight models.