"we have not and are not advocating for a ban on open-weights models" but we want to decide if a model can be released or not and who in the world can build these models ...
they have been very clear they don't want to be the ones deciding
Our position on open-weights models
791–800 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#792This reads as a lot of fear mongering which in the end can ve resumed as "We are going to lose money".
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#793or 3: cease your assault of the international order, drop the zero sum paradigm and take the opportunity given by these crumbling US-build institutions to build a truly global network of lawful cooperation, where everybody can win. Admit that it wasn't fair to begin with, and start anew. It is in the best interest of everybody, also the US and China, and therefor the most rational thing to do.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#794What Dario misses time and time again, is that people don't trust the US to create aligned AI anymore. His entire strategy rests on the assumption that the US (and their government) are exceptional. This is clearly false to the rest of the world.
then we will make them trust us
I guess we will continue to bomb any nonbelievers huh
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#795Schrödinger'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…
China should cooperate with the United States first for the benefit of its own people. Why should those who do not contribute benefit from it?
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#796Schrödinger'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
[deleted]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#797"China is bad"? I don't know, man. I'm not buying it.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#798Schrödinger'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 Te…
[flagged]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#799Basically:
"We are in favour of 3D printers but there should be a body that tests and certifies that a 3D printer cannot print anything that can be used as weapon. Anything pointy or with a spring and recoil or... or..."
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#800The way this reads, it seems like it was written for US lawmakers.
> 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.
This comes off a bit hypocritical, coming from one of the men responsible for the models most likely to be used by the US military, and for repression of US citizens.
> We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations ... We should have policy interventions to deter this behavior.
How exactly would you design policy interventions to stop distillation? If Anthropic wants to make their products available around the world, you would need some kind of global regulation to curtail it. And you would need to find some way to enforce it, which is far from trivial.
Honestly I don't see how securing models against distillation is up to anyone but Anthropic, if that's something they want to achieve. Calling for regulation is a bit like crying to mommy and daddy when things aren't going as you would like.
--
Overall, I can understand the argument that advanced AI models can present risks. But I don't see how regulation within the US can mitigate any of those risks. Any bad actor would be able to access the models outside the US, or covertly access the weights.
The only real way to prevent advanced models from being deployed would be to go around the world bombing every significantly powerful data center, and I don't think Dario would call for that any time soon.
The only thing this kind of regulation would achieve would be cutting US companies out of half of the innovation happening in the AI space, putting the US at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the world at everything except maybe frontier AI development.