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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#611

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

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…

The scariest outcome here is that a bunch of lunatics get ahold of a capable model and use to to harm the rest of us, who are at a disadvantage due to just how capable the model is.

But that's what's happening. The people in charge are a bunch of lunatics. However nice it would be to prevent them from having harmful capabilities, that ship has sailed. The best we can hope for now is preventing them from having supremacy, and that's what open weight models do.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#612

Post by throwaway27448 »

badatnames wrote: post #124

I can't remember the last time (if ever) a company managed to go from golden goose to.. whatever this is.. so quickly. The permanent defensiveness in his presentation is really hard to swallow, it actively puts me off wanting to believe in or rely on their product line with Dario at the helm. I don't even understand the logic leading up to this post. Who was it even hoping to convince. Is it possible Anthropic is due…

> The permanent defensiveness in his presentation is really hard to swallow, it actively puts me off wanting to believe in or rely on their product line with Dario at the helm.

It does give me the faintest glimmer of hope about the people who live here, though.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#613

Post by throwaway27448 »

timpera wrote: post #143
badatnames wrote: post #124

I can't remember the last time (if ever) a company managed to go from golden goose to.. whatever this is.. so quickly. The permanent defensiveness in his presentation is really hard to swallow, it actively puts me off wanting to believe in or rely on their product line with Dario at the helm. I don't even understand the logic leading up to this post. Who was it even hoping to convince. Is it possible Anthropic is due…

Anthropic has been surprisingly bad at comms for the last few months, which I find crazy in such a competitive market.

Compared to what?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#614

Post by zarzavat »

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…

There's a difference between:

> Something should be done

and

> Something can be done

In this case, nothing can be done to stop bad actors from using open models. As the article points out, the US can only feasibly prevent US businesses from using open models.

The US can attempt to stop those models from being trained in the first place but good luck with that.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#615

Post by throwaway27448 »

mjorgers wrote: post #16

So the argument is basically: This technology is too dangerous so only _we_ should have access to it. We’re the good guys and only we can ensure a safe use of this technology. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Not to mention it's simply farcical America of all places would be considered responsible. You could not name another country on earth who could wreak more damage (although thank god this is waning by the day with Trump destroying the empire in charge)

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#619

Post by glaslong »

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…

if a model fails the test, you don't give the public access. you let the government have it for 10-100x the usual token cost of course!
Post reply on HN