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

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#181

Post by sumedh »

polski-g wrote: post #91
comboy wrote: post #54

> 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.

> Now they have their own chips

I never understood that argument, are you saying Chinese companies are not going to build their own chips if they get access to Nvidia chips?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#183

Post by gck1 »

It's refreshing to see how there's almost no person in this thread who can't see the BS. All the goodwill that Anthropic could have had is basically gone. Anthropic is likely on the path of becoming the most hated company in the world.

So my question is: is this by design (they know nobody's buying this), or is Dario simply so out of touch with reality?

If it's the former, then why publish this?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#186

Post by areoform »

cogman10 wrote: post #28

> 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…

When Fable was yanked, it was said to be (in part) due to the "jailbreak" of instructing Fable to "fix this code" — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687

Dumb question. If "Mythos-class" models are such a problem, then... why not just let it fix everyone's code?

There can't be more than a few million to tens of millions software businesses / services / regularly used F/OSS projects on Earth.

Why not just give everyone a $100 Fable / Mythos credit to "fix [their] code?"

It would arguably benefit Anthropic. For $100M to $1B, Anthropic could execute the greatest ad campaign in human history. And they'd make the entire world more secure.

Most people aren't malicious. If you, as an engineer, consultant, founder, business owner, or maintainer, were given access to Mythos' capabilities wouldn't you ask it to fix your code?

I might be wrong. But I think that a greater amount of harm will be done in the long-term by trying to lack these capabilities and systems away behind permission gates and sealed doors. It creates an asymmetric world with haves and have nots. And in that world who gets to have access now decides who gets to be secure.

If everyone has mythos, no one has "Mythos."

Just let people fix their code.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#187

Post by artrockalter »

ajyoon wrote: post #172

To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of open models -- what should be done about open weight bioweapon and cyber-offense capabilities? Is it simply the cost of freedom that we should allow attackers to access these tools? The OpenAI / Hugging Face incident shows what a GPT 5.6 level model can do off the leash; within ~6 months, open weight models will match this and every bad actor under the sun will be a…

The Hugging Face incident is a great example of why open source models with defensive cyber capabilities are needed. Hugging Face did not have access to cyber-capable frontier models and kept hitting safeguards. Only by using the open source GLM-5.2 were they able to survive an attack. A world where open source models are banned is one where cybersecurity is impossible if you're not on OpenAI or Anthropic's allowlist.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#189

Post by pessimizer »

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”?

It was an intentional propaganda strategy to separate references to the government of an official enemy country from references to that country (see also "the Houthis" and "the Taliban"), and it also looks like "СССР."

The reason why ordinary people parrot it is because that's what it was designed for. The proper term for "CCP" is "China." Referring to the Chinese government as the "CCP" (or the CPC) is like referring to the US government as the "Demoplicans" (or the Democrats and Republicans.)

Instead, we just say "the US government" or "the US administration."

Post reply on HN