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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#691

Post by ccppurcell »

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…

He almost admits as much if you replace "America" with "Anthropic and openai" at certain places.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#692

Post by necovek »

otherme123 wrote: post #673
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…

> 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 committin…

Overpriced for the value provided, especially with the pay-as-you-go rates for enterprises; but also in stock prices.

Pricing a product is generally about ensuring a profit on investment, but also a good RoI for your customers (or they will not pay).

With these long-term profit exercises, it's always a lot of hand-waving though.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#693

Post by murderfs »

otherme123 wrote: post #673
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…

> 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 committin…

> I don't understand how Anthropic or OpenAI can have overpriced models, yet losing money like there is no tomorrow.

The marginal cost of inference (which is roughly what you're going to pay to a provider that's running an open weight model) doesn't include the cost of training that model.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#696

Post by janalsncm »

MrCheeze wrote: post #316
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?

That is in fact Anthropic's entire reason for existence, the belief that AGI is too dangerous to be controlled by OpenAI/Sam Altman. It naturally follows that it would also be too dangerous to be in the hands of literally everyone on earth.

Note that when the government declared Fable was too dangerous for Anthropic to control, Dario was against that too.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#697

Post by kanak8278 »

Yeah anything China does is evil. We are seeing what the so called "democratic" USA is doing. Anthropic and by extension USA wants a monopoly like they had for Jets and other influencing technolgies.

I think China building and releasing models to Opensource is a greater good because that is providing equal accessibility to everyone in the world.

By Dario's words authoritarian regime vis a vis China, I think OpenAI and Anthropic are also authoritarian in similar terms.

We are only seeing what they want us to show, they might be creating models which can do more harm.

So claiming that China can do or might do, vs Anthropic will not is just words.

Yeah I agree with the final paragraph that we should have testing agencies mandated world wide for each frontier model testing.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#698

Post by culi »

abotsis wrote: post #643

China releasing open weight models, powerful or not, does nothing to prevent their development of models they’ll use for evil. Nor does it stop someone from abliterating a non-Chinese model and using it for evil. Sorry- I don’t see any other reason aside from Anthropic protecting their own interests.

Is it possible to abliterate a closed model? I was under the assumption that you needed the weights

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#699

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

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…

>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!!)

I don't see the contradiction, even if China is evil, why would they want others to be able to do the same thing?

The USA and USSR also signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty during the height of the cold war.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#700

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

adastra22 wrote: post #420
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 bioweapon thing is absolute movie plot fiction. Go speak to some biologists about this and they'll set you straight. Cyber capabilities go both ways. Better offensive capabilities means better penetration testing by white hat security experts, which leads to better protections.

What's the explanation for why a bioweapon couldn't easily be made? As someone who doesn't have access to micro biologists
Post reply on HN