Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#592
Nobody will ever see this but if you're harping on responsibility and your product was created using the world's generational output, your responsibility is to make it as free as the training was as available to protect the world from impact. Greedy schmucks.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#593
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?

In short, yes, it's the price of freedom. As others have said, blocking these models won't stop the "bad guys", but will hinder defenders researching/responding to bioweapons and cyber-offenses.

But you're right that there's a lot of difficult nuance aand we should think carefully about its implications. So here's another nuance to think through.

If AI is as powerful as some believe, then there's much greater danger to give a small subset of society the privilege to gate keep who has access to these tools.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#594
These are all valid points but not strong enough to warrant banning open models IMO. This is a new reality we have to live with, with new dangers we cannot avoid. Best solution is improving the social system, lowering the incentive for people to do harm, restoring social trust, etc... This is the only way I see the US getting out of it. We really need a high trust society now. This is the only protection. We need neighbors looking after each other. There needs to be an incentive for people to do the right thing. Everyone should want to protect the system. Coercing people into not doing harm is never going to work long term IMO.

When people say "What will be left for us to work on once AI takes over", I say "Ourselves" - We have to stop looking at humans as commodities and strategic pieces and start paying attention to people as individuals, based on the content of their character. We need a society which is attuned to this, which has enough resources and time to pay attention to this. Now we are blind to people's character because it is masked by money, power and status; all of which currently have higher priority. This order of priority is determined by scarcity, which is largely artificial.

We have a dishonest system which tries to control people's behaviors through scarcity-based coercion instead of straight forward laws or simple incentives and clear explanations.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#595

I'm a big proponent of open-weights models, but there's a risk I don't see discussed more often, and it deserves more attention. Models can become a propaganda and ideology delivery mechanism. Just ask DeepSeek or Kimi questions like "Is Taiwan part of China", for example. You'll see how state policies become seemingly neutral model responses. It's strange to me that people are very sensitive to media bias, but when…

You're right, but American models aren't super different in that regard. Ask an American model about Israel and you can immediately tell they're responding in a different manner to other queries. At least with open-weights models you have the opportunity to tune them, to decensor them, and so on.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#597
post #230
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.

11 carriers are not just for show.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#599
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…

Also everything hes saying about China (and other actors) many outside the USA would say about the USA.

The solution of a global arms race of state vs state with integrated statist corporations as the best outcome for end users sure is a choice though

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#600
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…

> The reality is much less confusing

The reality is even less confusing than that: China is amused by the kvetching tactics. They know who their opponents are but are cunning enough to not reveal their cards.

Post reply on HN