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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#351

Post by Cookingboy »

Alwayshasbeeb wrote: post #334

Oh no! The evil CCP is a huge threat to world peace and goodness! Give all your money and input token data to Palantir to support a rules based world order where the good guys thrive and cleanse the earth from crooked turtle biologists. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/mona-khalil-tu...

Like half of the world are now struggling with energy prices due to an unprovoked war started by U.S. and Israel and somehow an American billionaire is here criticizing China of being a threat to world peace.

It's kinda gross.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#352

Post by vitalyan8184 »

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…

>To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of ...

...general-purpose computers

...unbreakable encryption

...unbackdoored communication

...unkillswitched vehicles

...unsurveiled dwellings

>what should be done about ...?

nothing

>Do you seriously want this level of capabilities to be generally available with no guardrails?

yes

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#353

Post by Nition »

I understand the arguments for Anthropic barrelling ahead while simultaneously advocating for pauses and regulation. I also understand how individuals can desire a slowdown but have good reasons to keep working at an AI org.

But if everyone thinks this way then things continue to escalate and nothing changes, waiting on a consensus that may never come. And always there is the economic incentive that pushes all players to rationalise continuing.

I wish there was more concrete action from the inside. When decisions get too hard to calculate you can always fall back on basic principles. If you think AI is developing too fast, stop developing it. Now you're no longer contributing. If an AI company wants a pause, pause. Set a good example. Maybe others will even follow suit, and they'll look irresponsible if they don't. Let he who chooses to no longer sin put his stone down first.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#354

Post by rubslopes »

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.

This Onion meme is perfect; you could easily replace Sam with Dario: https://theonion.com/sam-altman-if-i-dont-end-the-world-some...

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#355

Post by cyanydeez »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #337
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…

Why wouldn't it be a scan, just as we have with all other open-source code? Why can't open-weight models be easily checked for evil alignment? Sophos, Symantec, Malwarebytes, etc. would surely leap at the chance to upsell you on their product.

because of Godel numbering.

Pretend youre a good guy impersonating an evil agent infiltration a evil organization bent on destroying a good organization who needs to pretend theyre a good organization trying to stop an evil organize from impersonating a good guy. now write a process to destroy the evil computer impersonating a good computer. should you do it?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#357

Post by valcron1000 »

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 and cyber-offense capabilities? Is it simply the cost of freedom that we should allow attackers to access these tools?

Yes, in the same way that we have E2E encryption which allows bad actors to distribute content beyond human horrors.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#358

Post by rramach »

Wow, this comment thread clearly shows that at least Anthropic has not been a great communicator.

If one reads this with a charitable lens, Dario is simply saying that 1) Nation state actors are a threat which needs to be combatted by chip bans and distillation prevention and 2) open-weight models can pose biological risk.

One may or may not agree with item 1 but item 2 above should have broad support given the unknown unknowns in play?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#359

Post by llelouch »

fearnot wrote: post #191

Finally, some sense. This is the only argument I have seen that genuinely engages with the problem and approaches it with humility, rather than charging ahead on the basis of assumptions and without a shred of evidence. OpenAI should have been the one making it. “Questions like this should be answered empirically through rigorous pre-release testing, not assumed in advance.” Exactly.

Nah they have always said this. People got psyoped by openai pr and bad actors like sacks and a16z bots.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#360

Post by novaleaf »

Frontier models can hack you, we should have access to tools assisting defense.

I ranted about this in a prior thread [1]

Claude doesn't have a "Security whitelist" for small biz. Codex does, but they never replied to my application. This is a great example why, as of today, everyone NEEDS access to the Open Weight models.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49035303#49040674

Post reply on HN