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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#271

Post by ajyoon »

fidotron wrote: post #209
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…

> what should be done about open weight bioweapon Does not exist. What has in fact happened is some cults had bioweapons programs but any failure points were at deployment. (Aum Shinrikyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_atta... ) > and cyber-offense capabilities? You mean defense. That's how things get hardened. Anyone that was workin…

You admit that some attackers have the inclination to use bioweapons. Why would they not use the best tools at their disposal going forward?

From the WSJ the other day:

> After OpenAI enhanced the brain power of its chatbot last summer, hundreds of users worldwide began asking it how to make and deploy biological weapons and poisons.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-chatbot-biological-weapon...

On cyber, the attacker/defender asymmetry strongly favors attackers. There are millions of soft targets on the internet which do not have the savvy to use AI to shore up their defenses.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#272

Post by willmadden »

"All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing."

I love how they invoke fear of "terrorism" to justify their oppressive position.

Anthropic would love the US to do everything in this list under the guise of "safety testing":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997548#49007134

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#273

Post by prima-facie »

I think this letters tells us everything we need to know about the man. I've rarely seen so much flattery towards the current administration, contradiction, deflection, half-truths and hypocrisy on a single page. This man is scared of everyone: the current admin, the public, and the other companies promoting open-weights.

> Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good

Knives should only cut during the day, knives which cut at night are bad.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#274

Post by petcat »

flossly wrote: post #229
vhantz wrote: post #196

Schrödinger's China at once is an evil entity looking to use AI for their own nefarious purposes yet also willing to cooperate with their main competitor to prevent other actors (who??) from achieving similar goals (all while under a chip embargo too!!) The reality is much less confusing: Anthropic CEO does not wish for models with similar (or greater) capabilities compared to his own closed and overpriced ones to be…

Exactly. And the article specifically talks on restricting hardware for the China and restricting China's open source models for the west. All while leading us on with "we're all for competition (but...)" I think China did great by releasing AI innovation as open source, thereby limiting or sooner-bursting the AI bubble; which is clearly in their interest.

The models are not open source. They are deeply proprietary since we have no access to the source materials and cannot reproduce the model independently. They are opaque binary blobs that the Chinese labs are just allowing other providers to run directly instead of only access through an API.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#275

Post by kyllo »

Reads like fearmongering about oppressive and violent applications of AI that the Chinese government hypothetically could deploy, which the US government is already actively working on in the meantime.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#276

Post by naveen99 »

truncate wrote: post #206

Crack down on distillation, just for Chinese companies or is it ok for Chinese/US companies to distil? I find it hard to take Anthropic/OpenAI on distillation, because the way see it they started with "distillation" of another kind. They used all the content out there without consent of the creators and its still happening. Model distillation is just a different layer of abstraction, but same thing more or less.

Distillation is just the act of explaining things simply. Richard Feinman rolling in his grave.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#279

Post by kyllo »

Cookingboy wrote: post #238
m3h wrote: post #207

Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country seems to suddenly care about the repression of citizens in yet another country. No, we don't buy your virtue signaling. And we certainly don't need your better-than-thou opinions on this year's "nightmare scenarios".

Yeah Dario is just flat out disgusting in term of how shamelessly hypocritical he is. Do people actually believe that he gives a shit about the well being of the Chinese people? If the U.S. starts a war with China start bombing Chinese cities Dario would absolutely jump onboard supporting it. He'd probably make Claude to add DeepSeek and Moonshot HQ to the targeting list lmao. He is super pro-Israel as well, and neve…

[flagged]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#280

Post by arthurlockman »

It's so convenient that the US government already classified China as "authoritarian". If they hadn't, Dario would have to say “it’s a risk that other people build models more powerful than us”. I have to wonder what his response would be if for instance a lab in France or Germany came out with an open-weight model this good.
Post reply on HN