https://x.com/biggest/status/2081891756769952075?s=46 Official stance of an anthropic-employee being against Dario amodei opinion.
Our position on open-weights models
771–780 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#772Someone 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 bombing of the school was horrible, but it was a mistake. I could see essentially the opposite argument: Anthropic should be more involved as to prevent mistakes in the future with better technology. Imagine Claude asking the decision makers at CENTCOM "this looks like a school, are you sure you want this added as a target?"
You don't get to start a completely unprovoked and illegal war of aggression, bomb tons of targets with little care, kill 100 schoolchildren, and then say, "But it was a mistake."
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#773I'm really wondering what nightmare scenario does he imagine with super intelligent drones. I can already imagine it, a tiny drone carrying a 8x GPU rack thinking about life and deciding to go and build an idyllic society on a pacific island.
A Psalm for the Wild-Built
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#774> 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…
Even if the test is run by an independent third party, they can always test open weight models against "finetuning attacks" or similar language which every model will fail for structural reasons.
Their financial future is on the line. The Chinese frontier labs have caught up before the IPO that would have allowed them to cash out.
All three demands in the paper make perfect sense from this perspective. Without chip export restrictions, the rest of the world will leapfrog them in a few months. This will happen regardless, since they have more competition than in-house talent, but a ban would buy more time. Testing and banning capable open-weight models would hinder public research into the technology, another speed bump to slow down the competition. Same thing for "distillation", we can't have large scale public evaluations of their products...
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#775> 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 or perpetrate incredibly deep repression of their own people
The incredible hypocrisy to say this while the US itself is doing a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, with armed pro-government troops intimidating the population [0], where pro-government oligarchs openly talk of keeping the population under control with AI [1] all while actively enabling the rise of authoritarianism abroad [2] leaves a really bad taste in one's mouth.
What Dario really is opposed to is not authoritarianism. It's an authoritarianism where he's not part of the ruling class.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/15/remove-ice-u...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-s...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/civilisation...
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#776Someone 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".
> Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country... I might have missed something but wasn't the big story that Dario refused the Department of War's demand to use Anthropic's models for such purposes?
No, only for domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. It can be used to evaluate targets as long as a human pulls the trigger. But the DoD created a really strange position for itself, they use Claude, but also designed it as a supply chain threat, which should mean they cannot use it
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#777If the US bans them, I really hope the EU doesn't follow (don't have high hopes)
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#778Schrödinger'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
>Also everything hes saying about China (and other actors) many outside the USA would say about the USA.
Yes, I for sure trust the open models from China, more than anything coming out of the USA at the moment.
Its not just the USA's support for genocidal regimes, nor its heinously illegal wars and atrocious 21st century human rights record. Its also the Snowden revelations and the treatment of Julian Assange.
Slowly, surely, the world is building a firewall against the USA's imperialist actions - not just its motives. That AI is a key building block of that machination is of course, highly exciting.
There are many in Europe who feel the same. The tide is very definitely turning.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#779It really barely matters. Even if the US closes itself of for Chinese models; Europe won't. The rest of the world won't.
Even a completely closed US economy would not merit the current valuations Antrophic and OpenAI have.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#780> 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?
This isn't Twitter. You can write long comments here.