Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#631
> To address these concerns, I do support the following ~~three~~ four measures, which I and Anthropic have consistently advocated for:

> ...

4. At the end of all this Dario Amodei must become a trillionare, for the good of all humanity.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#632
Anthropic/Dario getting a lot of hate in this thread, but the argument he makes is rational if you believe for one second that AI is important to national security and that it can, or will soon be incredibly dangerous is misused. People pointing out that this position benefits his company might be overly reductionist in how they think the world works. I believe Dario and Anthropic about their belief that AI safety is paramount because they put serious dollars behind research to improve safety/alignment, not just lip service for others. Those resources could get spent elsewhere but do not. Certainly it doesn't at OpenAI to that degree.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#633
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…

It's baffling that they thought the mental gymnastics in this blog post would make them look better. I'd rather they simply fall silent on the issue; I would respect them more (or at all) for it. Open models obviously threaten fierce competition, if not outright destruction of their bottom line. But no, they needed to try and argue that they have the moral high ground for attempting to singularly consolidate power ov…

Gymnastics? The argument was straightforward and rational.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#634
post #488

> 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…

we should turn this around Private models should be banned because they can't be transparently evaluated. We have to trust the same entities that made them to evaluate them, in spite of their gigantic conflict of interest in doing so. Therefore only open weight models can be allowed, since this allows genuine third party evaluation.

>We have to trust the same entities that made them to evaluate them, in spite of their gigantic conflict of interest in doing so.

Don't we already have third party NGOs such as METR which do risk assessments for unreleased, closed models?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#635
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

Why is it relevant what those outside would say about the US? Or what those outside of any country would say about any country. The job of a country is to do what is best for it. It's better for the US to not help China develop AI that surpasses its own capabilities. It's better for China to try anyway. There are many countries inventing nothing with loud opinions. Those opinions are completely irrelevant to China or the US.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#636
post #292

> 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…

This is my read too- if American companies start backing nonsense like this, they'll fall behind permanently. > 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— Isn't this article an argument in favor of authoritarianism? Plus a tad hypocritical no? The US is on an obvious authoritarian path; complete with…

>The US is on an obvious authoritarian path; complete with threatening their neighbors, murdering innocent civilians, and locking up innocent people in droves

Prediction markets suggest the next US president is most likely one of the following people: Gavin Newsom, Jon Ossoff, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamala Harris, JD Vance, Marco Rubio.

It's not obvious to me that the US is on an "authoritarian path".

Would you say that e.g. Europe is on an "authoritarian path" with the popularity of government censorship there? https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/the-situation-for-free-sp...

Your comment seems like more of a diatribe than a serious analysis of likely future scenarios.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#637
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…

Too bad. We'll have to deal with it. There is no way to stop the weaponization of models now.

But more people having access to the potential tools for defensive is the best possible scenario.

Every other scenario is worse off for everyone except for those with enough money to do something about it.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#639
He could’ve just signed the letter.

We all know that this isn’t some higher ground stance, they’re anti-competitive since they’re currently #1. I’ve been seeing this for a while. They’re also the only large AI lab to NOT have ANY open-weight models in the public. Meta, xAI, OpenAI, they all have at least some of their models open sourced from a year or so ago, Anthropic hasn’t even made Haiku 1.0 open-weight.

On top of that, I personally think that they’re upping the price on their models higher than they’re letting on, I think if someone did the actual math on their exact amount of compute and then compared it to their consumer and API prices, it would be astounding.

Post reply on HN