I think it's only fair to introduce this if you're willing to have a real skin in the game, otherwise that's just weakness disguised as principle.
Our position on open-weights models
101–110 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#102Re: Our position on open-weights models
#103[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.
Yes, anthropic just put forward this argument. It's the whole point of the article.
I agree, it's absurd.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#104Re: Our position on open-weights models
#105Seems 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.
I don't agree with his argument as a whole, especially not on some of the specifics (it is not great that this technology is being developed under the current US government), but I am sympathetic to the idea that some bells can't be unrung, and thus we should proceed with caution.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#106Their position seems fair to me - sure it does help them as well, but I don't necessarily disagree with the risk they are laying out.
THiS! I'm pretty amazed how many people shoot them down without acknowledging the very real and somewhat probable risks they and other researchers have laid out. I don't agree with every point they make but folks really do just seem to think we should just keep building any technology and whine when we start to consider there are very real risks associated with powerful technology. checks notes see nuclear bombing of…
And then there are probably people who are more politically neutral who think Anthropic is using China as an excuse to crush competition. Which could also be true.
But fundamentally, if this technology is so dangerous, why does anyone get to control it?
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#107Re: Our position on open-weights models
#108Re: Our position on open-weights models
#109[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.
Works for both ways, which is fair?