Dario is smarter than his models or he should ask suggestions from his models? Here is the reply from sonnet 5 model: "The letter/counter-letter framing obscures the more interesting critique, which isn't "does Anthropic want a ban" (no) but "does Anthropic's broader push for regulation structurally favor incumbents like itself." That's a fair question to ask of any frontier lab making policy asks, Anthropic included, and this post doesn't really address it."
Our position on open-weights models
651–660 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#652In 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…
> If you truly believe that bans don't work, the same applies to hardware too. No, software and hardware are different. You can very plausibly prevent smuggling of physical objects, and you very obviously cannot prevent smuggling/diffusion of open source bits-on-disk.
[deleted]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#653> ...that “authoritarian regimes"
Umm, isn't the US acting like another authoritarian regime by advocating a certain kind of obstacle because only a US regime is allowed[1] to do what it is fearing[1] about:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Biological_...
[2] AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks
Anyway, Dario. You are more concerned about your business than anything else.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#654So your concern is safety, and you claim you are the only one that can give us safety but do so by keeping your product closed? Then how about you release the weights? I think it's only fair to introduce this if you're willing to have a real skin in the game, otherwise that's just weakness disguised as principle.
"You claim you're the only one who can keep us safe from nukes. Where's your nuclear weapon blueprint then, huh??"
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#655>Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good
For convenient definitions of "dangerous"
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#656> the risk that authoritarian governments [...] 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. This is rich coming from a guy who signed deals with an authoritarian government that's in the midst of launching an unprecedented surveillance apparatus (hello flock, hi p4l4nt1r), having…
Anthropic was the major AI firm which took a firm stance against mass domestic surveillance...
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#657> industrial scale distillation attacks
You mean the industrial scale distillation attack you perform on the entire corpus of human knowledge… idk, call me cynical but you reap what you sow.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#658He carefully avoids saying whether he approves or disapproves of banning models in general, only comes out and says he is against a "blanket ban" or "banning open-weight models as a category".
Crafty lawyer speak, saying nothing of substance.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#659In 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…
> If you truly believe that bans don't work, the same applies to hardware too. No, software and hardware are different. You can very plausibly prevent smuggling of physical objects, and you very obviously cannot prevent smuggling/diffusion of open source bits-on-disk.
> software and hardware are different
No, because both can be banned using laws and Dario is against banning. It doesn't matter if you smuggle or not, law can outright ban it.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#660Schrödinger'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: Anthropic CEO does not wish for models with similar (or greater) capabilities compared to his own closed and overpriced ones to be widely released. Simply because that will affect Anthropic's bottom-line. If some other competing company had a similar or better product at a cheaper price and had reasonable safety measures that would also hurt them. Yet he's not arguing against tha…
> If some other competing company had a similar or better product at a cheaper price and had reasonable safety measures that would also hurt them. Yet he's not arguing against that. Your argument is weak.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the satisfactory "reasonable safety measures" turn out to be expensive + time-consuming + a twisty maze of compliance paperwork as a way to discourage "some other competing company" from even trying?
Regulatory capture 101.
Anthropic and OpenAI's largest vulnerability is that it's much harder to prove something is possible than to replicate it once it's proven. Especially given the effectiveness of "distillation" (highly schadenfreude-y given the utter and complete lack of effort to pay licensing fees for almost any of the content they initially scraped, of course! Not that this is necessarily more schadenfreude-y than the "boy, I opened Pandora's box, I sure hope nobody else peaks in there" existential-risk concerns. Good job catching that in advance, thanks for nothing?).