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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#321

Post by kelnos »

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…

Or the important question: what happens if the model fails this test? Presumably then it gets banned; otherwise what's the point of the test if no action is taken if it fails?

More self-serving trash from the US AI companies, disguised as "being reasonable".

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#322

Post by manoDev »

andix wrote: post #302

China doesn't seem to think that powerful open weight models are a serious threat to them. Otherwise they wouldn't release them. Those models could also be used by their enemies against China. I'm not a fan of the Chinese political system, but they usually think things through, and do smart things for their benefit.

Don't you Dare use logic to analyze their statement, it's based on moral panic.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#323

Post by dualvariable »

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…

Yeah, this is just regulatory capture.

Make the safety tests abusively expensive enough to run, and if you're not a trillion-dollar corporation, you won't be able to certify the models.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#324

Post by nout »

Oh wow, that's a pretty strong request to ban open-weight models by choking them with review processes where who-knows-who defines what is ok in a model and what is not. After open weight model is released, it will take how long to review it? And why does that align exactly with the timeline of the next Anthropic model release?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#325

Post by [deleted] »

m_ke wrote: post #230
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…

Yeah some real main character energy from Dario as usual. I'll never get why he thinks China would just sit there and let the US dominate them in AI when all it would take is a few of their boats blockading Taiwan to put a stop to it all.

[deleted]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#326

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

Exactly correct. This technique has been used again and again to discourage competition. I was asked was they could have done to encourage competition and I said, "Lobby to make the entity that provided the model unwaivably liable for consequential and incidental damages of its use." That way people who built models pay the price for the lack of safety testing. We both agreed that would probably kill most of the AI market :-)

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#327

Post by verdverm »

modeless wrote: post #26

> 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…

What happens if a model passes the government tests and then later someone fine tunes it to behave differently, without making their changes public?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#329

Post by nout »

jadar wrote: post #96

This reads almost dishonestly. > Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. This is not an unqualified never. The very next sentence makes a qualified statement: "Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good". That prompts the question, what about ones which do have "dangerous capabilities"? Are they not a public good? If not, then should they be banned? Who gets t…

It's the same as how by "we will prevent teenagers from using social networks" they mean "we really want to connect everyones ID with their social account identity".

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#330

Post by MiSeRyDeee »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #155

In the first paragraph, > Anyone who has read my past writing should know that I don’t regard such bans as a useful measure, Later (on banning chip sales to china) > we should crack down on the rampant smuggling and workarounds used to obtain access to such chips. If you truly believe that bans don't work, the same applies to hardware too. Furthermore, Dario says later "To address these concerns, I do support the fol…

Exactly, the letter will make much more sense if they are releasing open weight models and China is distilling their models and keep them in secrets for evil purpose
Post reply on HN