Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#471

> 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…

A government agency tests all medications, why not models?

[deleted]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#472
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".

You act as if anyone was happy to hit an elementary school. I'm sure everyone involved feels it was a terrible tragedy

You give too much credit. Many think of it as an acceptable cost of waging war, not something to waste regret on. Some few think of it as a positive (they chant death to America over there).

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#473
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…

Honest question:

If your business model both produces the SOTA for something and isn't profitable, is the price too high, though?

While the gap is shrinking - and doing so at an increasingly quicker rate - the closed models are still ahead of the open ones. That means they're driving the new possibilities of what could be done with them, and thus presenting the new opportunities to create value with them.

Really, this is what happens when you have otherwise brilliant people sitting in the echo chamber that is SV, where nothing can just make a decent amount of money, it has to make all of the money and disrupt everything. There's no one in that damn area to tell everyone to calm the hell down and accept anything less than that.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#474

A sober look at actual rogue nations and their use of AI shouldn’t have us fretting over that particular hemisphere

Yes, it should. It absolutely should. The United States making questionable decisions and behaving recklessly and dangerously as a country does not suddenly make China any better. China is as worse as the United States, if not more worse, by many measures.

> The United States making questionable decisions and behaving recklessly and dangerously as a country does not suddenly make China any better.

It absolutely does make China better relatively, i.e. by comparison to the US.

Many of the criticisms previously leveled at China are now similarly applicable to the US in a way that they weren’t previously. Human rights violations? The US is currently the major global supporter of an ongoing genocide, and it even kills and deports its own citizens for political reasons. Political opponents are investigated by the state. When it comes to wars and other interference with other countries - like kidnapping a president - the US is far worse than China at the moment.

In which ways is China “more worse” right now?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#476
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 bioweapon panic is funny. "oh, yes i know nothing about bicrobiology but i will follow instructions of synthetic text generation machine on temperature 1 about how to design a lab to not kill myself while brewing organisms that will kill myself if i make mistake"

There is nothing that special about bioweapons, there are plenty of bacteria that will kill you just fine. Americans even have free samples on their salad.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#477
post #362

> 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 anthropic advocating for a ban on open weight models. This is an ungenerous take, and I think it's important to to recognize it's reasonable to support models that are both open and safe. How this would actually be achieved is unclear though. Dario is at least proposing a solution a solution, which is the model needs to pass safety testing. This is reasonable and I wouldn't conflate this with wanting…

> This is an ungenerous take

Why should I give a multi-billion dollar company advocating for new regulations in its industry a generous take?

I'd be similarly cynical if McDonald's proposed new health and safety regulations for restaurants.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#479

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…

TL;DR: We like money, and Anthropic should stay in a position to make loads of it despite any competition.

That's more or less how China has historically treated its competition. The CCP has routinely intervened to give their country's corporate interests an advantage.

Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to sell a car as a non-Chinese company in China, you had to hand over pretty much everything to a local company and go into business with them.

When Google wanted to operate an uncensored search engine in China, they found themselves hacked.

It's not altogether unusual for IP to be transferred to Chinese manufacturers for production under a license agreement, then to find goods made with that IP to be for sale for far cheaper without payment made through the licensing agreement. Or maybe they just don't bother with a licensing agreement at all and do counterfeit products straight-up.

There are more examples but turnabout is ultimately fair play.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#480
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…

maybe instead of worrying that people on the internet will be good at coding, we could start writing memory safe apis. almost all cves are fixed by using rust
Post reply on HN