Our position on open-weights models • Hacker News Board

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#661

Post by tesnorindian » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:22 AM UTC

chorizo wrote: post #628

GodelNumbering wrote: post #155

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…

At this point, Anthropic releasing a sonnet 4.x class open weights model would be a positive PR move that doesn’t affect their bottom line.

+1 and this will really be a good move. Open weights models are not going anywhere the focus should now shift to hardware and compute. Compute needs to be optimized for LLMs, currently they are inefficient. Analog computing like ReRAM should get more focus.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#662

Post by jibber1984v » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:22 AM UTC

CMay wrote: post #648

vhantz wrote: 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: 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.

He isn't arguing against that, because this will be too blunt. Instead, he argues that only good guys should keep inference. Any takers on the question of who he considers to be the good guys?

> Found the person that believes some other random person can use a computer better than a John Carmack could.

Found the person that believes major AI labs have all the knowledge about the AI and there aren't any "Carmacks" outside of these companies. Rich know better how to use money, so let them have it.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#663

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:23 AM UTC

andix wrote: post #302

China doesn't seem to think that powerful open weight models are a serious threat to them. Otherwise they wouldn't release them. Those models could also be used by their enemies against China. I'm not a fan of the Chinese political system, but they usually think things through, and do smart things for their benefit.

China is worried about AI. In fact, Chinese leadership has expressed more worry than US leadership.

"Second, we should strengthen risk awareness and ensure that AI is secure and controllable. AI should be a trusted tool for humanity. We should take seriously the various types of inherent and secondary risks that AI may trigger. We should put in place laws and regulations, technological monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems in order to strengthen the line of security, prevent abuses and malicious use and ensure that AI is always under human control.

..

With AI advancing at a staggering speed, we must ensure its development is for the positive, for good, and for humanity. We must make its oversight and governance precise and effective and constantly refine measures to forestall loss of control."

https://xcancel.com/S_OhEigeartaigh/status/20780236576206768...

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#664

Post by d5lt5 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:25 AM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #561

cogman10 wrote: post #28

> 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…

It’s also how the FDA works. Ban new products until they have been proven safe. I think that also applies to AI products. It’s a hell if a lot better for the government to test and approve all models than having the industry “police itself” (lol)

Yes, we need a ministry to minimize the possibility of thought crimes.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#665

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:25 AM UTC

_jab wrote: post #178

A bit off-topic from the core of the post, but: > At Anthropic we’re committed to cracking down on industrial-scale distillation through our own practices, including identifying and banning accounts that use our models in this way. This is challenging—for instance, the relevant accounts can often only be identified after substantial distillation has occurred, and distillation often involves creating large numbers of…

I agree. If Anthropic is truly concerned about powerful open models, they need to just stop releasing powerful closed models. Put up or shut up.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#666

Post by spaceman_2020 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:27 AM UTC

twelvechairs wrote: post #599

vhantz wrote: 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

All my adult life, China has given me cheap material goods. Whatever they do in their country is their own problem. They’ve never interfered in my politics or started any wars

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#667

Post by foxylad » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:28 AM UTC

This is right up there with Google suing another company for scraping their web site. https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/12/google-lobs-lawsuit-a... - which a judge just dismissed.

Maybe the techbros are playing irony roulette, seeing who can get away with the most outrageous hypocrisy.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#668

Post by throwaw12 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:29 AM UTC

> My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments...

Authoritarian government doesn't always mean bad - look at Singapore

What's more dangerous is country with bunch of war mongering lobbyists who can also influence elections (oops, sounds like USA)

> My secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks

But you are working with DoW and Palantir, who is doing somewhat similar in other countries

> We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China

Israel used banned weapons against Lebanon and Palestinians, would you support similar ban to Israelis?

> We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations

Should we also ban distilling public knowledge? Like using textbooks to train the model? Should rules be simple: train your model only on the data you have produced by hand?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#669

Post by stratos123 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:30 AM UTC

broodbucket wrote: post #459

phantomathkg wrote: post #446

I found lots of comments here suffer from proximity bias. Anthropic anti-open-model stance does not mean China is not a threat.

I don't think people are saying China isn't bad, they're saying it's incredibly hypocritical because the US is also bad

Several people in this thread are, in fact, saying China isn't bad and that they want it to win. And even among those who don't, many imply that the US is as bad as China, which would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Like, if hypothetically in 2028 US stops having elections and becomes a dictatorship, then maybe, depending on the circumstances, it'd deserve to be called as authoritarian as China.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#670

Post by throwaw12 » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 5:32 AM UTC

throwaw12 wrote: post #668

> My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments... Authoritarian government doesn't always mean bad - look at Singapore What's more dangerous is country with bunch of war mongering lobbyists who can also influence elections (oops, sounds like USA) > My secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks But you are working with DoW and P…

(comment got too long, continuation)

> All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing

Why? And how do you design those tests?

For example, bombing girls school in Iran - is this allowed use according to you or not?

If not allowed use, then how do you guarantee that you don't have a separate agreement with DoW which makes it allowed use and only your model passes it?