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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#421

Post by hn_submit »

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…

Look, Big Tech has lost almost a trillion dollars in valuation in a SINGLE DAY. A few more of these downturns and the entire A.I. revolution will be stopped dead in its tracks and we won't have to worry about safety checks, DRAM shortage or open-weight models anymore.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#422

Post by djsjajah »

credit_guy wrote: post #370

I know it's unpopular, or unfashionable, but I agree with this letter. LLMs are becoming so powerful that they are dangerous. We've seen last week with the OpenAI hacking (by mistake) Hugging Face debacle. It is absolutely ok to have open weight models at the level of GPT-OSS-100B. That one was released one year ago, and I think it's still a strong one. GLM 5.2 is a whole new level, but it appears to still be safe. M…

but what is the point? A ban is supposed to make a certain thing less likely to occur. Does a ban of open source models do that? Presumably, the behavior you are trying to limit is the miss-use of these models but I don't know how many state sponsored hacking groups are going to give a ban a second thought.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#423

Post by adastra22 »

dolebirchwood wrote: post #418
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? If the model is capable of it, then it was in the model's training data, which means it was on the internet or published in books made available for consumption. So if any member of the public could have gotten their hands on that information, so be it. If the knowledge was too dangerous for public access, then it should have been highl…

The threats are BS, but fyi models have repeatedly shown capability to produce novel things that are NOT in their training set.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#424

Post by wolvoleo »

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…

Besides, Banning those models in the US does nothing to protect from other actors using them. That doesn't help in any way.

It also doesn't stop non law abiding US citizens from having access to them. So basically it just stops the 'good guys' not the bad guys. I say good guys from a US perspective of course.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#426

Post by jhack »

"My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments—not solely the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), although the CCP is clearly the most capable threat—build AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US, and use them to achieve permanent military superiority or perpetrate incredibly deep repression of their own people."

Look in the mirror.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#428

Post by abacadaba »

soundworlds wrote: post #257

What Dario misses time and time again, is that people don't trust the US to create aligned AI anymore. His entire strategy rests on the assumption that the US (and their government) are exceptional. This is clearly false to the rest of the world.

then we will make them trust us

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#429

Post by BeetleB »

monk_grilla wrote: post #417
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".

> Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country... I might have missed something but wasn't the big story that Dario refused the Department of War's demand to use Anthropic's models for such purposes?

No. He refused the use against US citizens domestically. He had already agreed for military use against others - this is well reported.
Post reply on HN