[deleted]
Our position on open-weights models
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#672Then: Nuclear technology is too dangerous, only we can be trusted with it.
Now: AI technology is too dangerous, only we can be trusted with it.
Different century, same double standard
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#673Schrödinger'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…
> compared to his own closed and overpriced ones
I don't understand how Anthropic or OpenAI can have overpriced models, yet losing money like there is no tomorrow. Taking their own numbers at face value, they claim a revenue of 24 billion (ARR, a dubious tool), spending 21 billion in operating losses and another 11 billion as "R&D" funneled straight to Microsoft pockets. That before all investments they are committing to in new data centers, equivalent to 20x their current revenue.
To be profitable (including capex), the cheapest subscription should at least $200/month for what is currently $20/month, that some already consider overpriced. Unless a miraculous collapse in inference costs happen in the next couple of years, or every single human being become a paying customer of ChatGPT (if they limit their usage to a couple of chats per day on average, to keep inference costs low!), maths don't add up.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#674Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country seems to suddenly care about the repression of citizens in yet another country. No, we don't buy your virtue signaling. And we certainly don't need your better-than-thou opinions on this year's "nightmare scenarios".
The elementary school example is a clear sign of bad faith. Neither Iran or the USA have intentionally blown up any school children.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#675TL;DR - We don't care about most open models. They are weak, and we don't care how they're used.
We care about specifically Chinese models, because China distills our models. And that's real competition. So we want to ban those.
PS. Oh yeah, in case any open non-Chinese model will one day be good enough to compete with us, we will want to ban you as well, just FYI.
Kthxbye.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#676"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—build AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US, and use them to achieve permanent military superiority"
I see this sentiment a lot. China is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but since 1979 China has not participated in a single war or supported hostile regimen change operations.
I think Amodei's mistake is to take it granted that USA is a good actor. Anyone can draw their own conclusions but just for reference here are some highlights starting from 1979.
Armed operations in Lebanon (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), the Persian Gulf (1987-88), Panama (1989-90), Iraq and Kuwait (1990-91, with no-fly zones until 2003), Somalia (1992-94), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Sudan and Afghanistan (1998), Iraq (1998), Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003-2011, and again from 2014), Pakistan (2004-2018), Somalia (2007 to the present), Yemen (2002 to the present), Libya (2011), Syria (2014 to the present), Iran (2020 and 2025 to the present), and Venezuela and the Caribbean (2025-26).
Regime change operations in Afghanistan (1979-89), Nicaragua (1981-90), Cambodia (1980s), Angola (1985-91), Iraq (1995-98), Serbia (1999-2000), Syria (2013-17), and Venezuela (2019-2025).
The lists do not include the numerous operations by Israel which effectively is part of the same US military hegemony that Amodei is here defending.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#677A key point I feel that’s missing from the discourse is that alignment/safety is basically an impossible problem as of now. Even the “guardrails” that these closed-weights frontier labs set in are laughably primitive which can provably be broken through.
The experimental part of Deep Learning has really outdone itself and is far ahead of theory. We have very little understanding of why these particular architectural choices work. The only “safe” way forward is to stop all development until theory catches up, but that’s never happening.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#678If you are indeed a good guy, why don't you release Opus 4.8 as an open weight and we will test it for safety, if you yourself can oass tests demanding from others
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#679It's so ironic to me the way people will say "china should not have these chips" meanwhile they manufacture like 99% of all the electronics we have in the united states.
Of all the electronics, but not of the only electronics that actually matters -- the GPUs that models get trained on. China has been trying to develop their own for a while now but they're still generations behind.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#680We are ok with Open Weight models unless they are far weaker than our closed weight models and we and only we have control over them