[dead]
Our position on open-weights models
161–170 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#162> 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…
Exactly. If you care about AI, simply don't use Anthropic - use open source.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#163[flagged]
Do you have some browser extension that replaces phrases with that? That quote doesn't exist in the piece.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#164he's asking for the most powerful models to be in the hands of the few while the majority will be at their mercy.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#165[deleted]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#166> 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…
The entire safety evals industry is essentially funded and controlled by OpenAI/Anthropic. Notice that on recent models, they exclusively use internal testing or black box external vendors (e.g., Gray Swan) whose entire business is to serve OpenAI/Anthropic. And all these companies just share the same pool of researchers back and forth.
Anyone who calls it “safety” probably has a certain world view and is more aligned with the big 2 (and stuck in 2023).
There is a growing industry of commercially focused risk evals that has a broader customer base.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#167> 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…
Nah, the statement is the mechanism for a ban. The proctor will be someone anthropic trusts and "surprise" as it turns out all the open weight models fail or aren't eligible.
[dead]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#168> 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.
Jensen was right. We should have sold chips to China so they'd be depenent on us. Now they have their own chips and most of Nvidia product line is internally banned.
It's unlikely that China would've become completely dependent on us in either case. They're good copycats, with incredible talent in engineering and manufacturing. They're aware that we depend on them for a lot - I think they'd be similarly aware of the risk of becoming dependent on us.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#169I 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.
Current big picture reality is bad for comms unfortunately. As another commenter quoted, "You can put lipstick on a pig, it'll still be a pig". Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't very calm. Do you think a company this well-capitalized and smart is just bumbling around like idiots? Everything makes sense if one just actually entertains the idea that they are earnest and we are in a dangerous arms race
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#170You can put lipstick on a pig, it'll still be a pig "Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models." --- "We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations" "All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing" These are in tension with advocating for open weight models. Not direct but enough that it calls into question the first statement. What…
What do they even really mean by "safety"? I mean, I can have an Anthropic model do something incredibly unsafe if, for example, I put it in charge of a hydroelectric dam and don't explain properly how the controls work. On some level, everything is simultaneously "safe" and "unsafe". I've never found Amodei's reasoning here to be particularly well thought-through. I think he, like a lot of folks in the area, are starting to realize that they may never be able to build a moat around their businesses.