Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#141

Post by wincy »

MikePlacid wrote: post #111
pcstl wrote: post #38

[flagged]

I can understand why the Western media calls something that has an official name of CPC (the Communist Party of China) as CCP (Chinese Communist Party? Not sure here). What puzzles me is - why ordinary people always repeat this wrong abbreviation. Is it like “I never check the sources, I trust everything that Western media publishes”?

For something I say maybe a few times a year it’d be a great look to sneeringly point out and talk down to people every time I mention China in the context of international politics.

Unless the Communist Party of the US (I’m not looking up its official name, because it doesn’t matter) wins the next presidential election it’s unlikely that people will call it anything but the CCP. Everyone know what everyone else means.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#142

Post by zer00eyz »

thierrydamiba wrote: post #9

“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?

Because Dario is still thinking in the past. He's having a Ben Carsons "the pyramids were to store grain" moment and no one is stopping him.

FTA > "My secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks"

If this is the sort of attack he thinks is to be worried about then I dont know what to tell him. We already opened pandoras box on this. Look at what the Ukraine has done with open source drones (hunting people autonomously)

It takes minimal funding to build enough drones to destroy enough power infrastructure to shut down a large chunk of our grid. It takes even fewer talented resources to put that together with the help of already available AI.

The question I would ask Dario is this: what would some one like Ted Kazniski come up with given the resources of AI. It sure as shit would not be hacking or bioweapons or bombs in the mail.

IF they really gave a shit about safety, the would be funding (in conjunction with other AI companies) actual anonymous red teams (Ala wall facers) with some degree of independent over sight to put in the work that they arent. We're talking about a company that could not even keep its own harness code secure.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#143

Post by timpera »

badatnames wrote: post #124

I can't remember the last time (if ever) a company managed to go from golden goose to.. whatever this is.. so quickly. The permanent defensiveness in his presentation is really hard to swallow, it actively puts me off wanting to believe in or rely on their product line with Dario at the helm. I don't even understand the logic leading up to this post. Who was it even hoping to convince. Is it possible Anthropic is due…

Anthropic has been surprisingly bad at comms for the last few months, which I find crazy in such a competitive market.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#144

Post by Madmallard »

Boris here. This post does not give us good publicity so I will refrain from commenting. Please wait for another demo thread of a new feature of ours or AI appraisal blog post and I will gladly go into as much detail as I can to give us as much hype as possible!

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#147

Post by gck1 »

> We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China

Yes, please. We don't know whether we'd have open weight models today, had the chip-prohibition not been in place. Nor would we see the more optimized models such as DeepSeek or qwen.

We also would not see new players entering RAM market after you and your pals in Silicon Valley hoarded the entire world's hardware.

So by all means, double, no, triple down on this.

> We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations

And let's apply this retroactively to Anthropic too. You industrial-scale-operation-distilled all of humanity's knowledge. Let's have some of that crack down on you too.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#150

Post by horsebridge »

> "We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations" I'd prefer if there was a crack down on industrial-scale scraping. Maybe even reimbursement for the problems it has caused (some nasty AWS bills, tons of man-hours spent on preventing new nasty AWS bills, etc).
Post reply on HN