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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#801

Post by bayindirh »

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…

In short: "We don't propose a ban to open-weight models. we want to stop these models being developed altogether. If there are no models, there'll be nothing to ban".

Oh also: "They ste^H^H^H distill what we have sto^H^H^H used fairly from the world. This is unfair".

Lastly: "What if they use their models in their military and local police services like we do? Communism!"

As always: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_AiI9_XIAA67_t.jpg?name=orig

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#802

Post by calgoo »

fmap wrote: post #774
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…

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 e…

Add to that the restrictions on even in-house talent being allowed to work on the latest models, we might actually have a brain drain from Anthropic soon which would be a welcoming sign.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#803

Post by yamal4321 »

Booo! "authoritarian hands". Scary

Its not like current US regime is using AI for: 1) Mass military operations across the globe 2) Mass surveilance of its citizens 3) Removing every possible safety guard from AI/climate regulation 4) Stealing data across the world to train its own closed-source models 5) Is openly antidemocratic, destabilizing EU and economy of whole world

I wonder why company which is actively cooperating with the current regime would push such message

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#804

Post by calgoo »

tyre wrote: post #374
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…

What are you suggesting as an alternative? Everyone seems to want some fairytale world where there are open models, they’re all safe according to that person’s exact balance of risk and capabilities, and no one except the author or cynics are acting in good faith. What Dario lays out is very reasonable _of course_ the devil is in the details, but between him and Altman, there’s a clear divide on who to trust.

Well, Dario says one thing and then turns around and sells his model to the US government to use against the entire world for spying and their wars, just like Altman. Just because he does not sound as deranged as Altman, does not make him good.

Now, to what he lays out, its not reasonable, its only reasonable from a purely American corporate viewpoint where the rest of the world can crash and burn as long as they get their billions.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#805

Post by Akronymus »

bayindirh wrote: post #801
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…

In short: "We don't propose a ban to open-weight models. we want to stop these models being developed altogether. If there are no models, there'll be nothing to ban". Oh also: "They ste^H^H^H distill what we have sto^H^H^H used fairly from the world. This is unfair". Lastly: "What if they use their models in their military and local police services like we do? Communism!" As always: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_AiI9…

A bit off-topic: I occasionally see that triple ^H on HN posts: what does that actually indicate?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#807

Post by pseudony »

Honestly no need to read this drivel.

They have raised billions of dollars and are hoping to justify that by being a monopoly or oligopoly and their worst enemy- the pareto principle, is biting them in the ass. So now they’ll turn to policy to safeguard what they initially hoped could be achieved with money and technology.

It is that simple, they are the very definition of an unreliable source on this topic.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#808

Post by calgoo »

bag_boy wrote: post #574
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…

He cited the Demis Hassabis’s framework for testing. From Hassabis’s essay: “It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organisation, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

Yea and that would last 5 minutes before Corporate America in the current landscape would control it fully, just like the Financial industry.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#809

Post by itemize123 »

paweladamczuk wrote: post #767

There is an odd assumption behind this post that you can put effective guardrails on a model before releasing it. I thought nobody had such technology?

I think it's possible; But in the same vein, amongst other things, regulation is a transparent trojan horse to stop open-weight models - they would, on the next phase, argue that guardrails can be fine-tuned away if weights are open etc;

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#810

Post by nevertoolate »

qnleigh wrote: post #770
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…

I'm dismayed that I had to scroll past so many cynical cheap shots to find a comment that actually addresses the core point. I have yet to hear a single compelling plan for how we will prevent bioweapon development or massive hacking campaigns. For those who are skeptical of Dario's motives here, it's not enough to call out apparent hypocrisy, you need to suggest an alternative plan that addresses these concerns.

> I had to scroll past so many cynical cheap shots

I haven't read cynical comments, just ones pointing out that the article is cynical itself.

> addresses the core point

No it doesn't address anything, it is fear mongering question.

> I have yet to hear a single compelling plan for how we will prevent bioweapon development or massive hacking campaigns

Me neither, I just see marketing campaigns trying to raise valuation of a pre-IPO company.

> you need to suggest an alternative plan that addresses these concerns

I suggest that Dario stops writing marketing letters and start organizing a mostly neutral expert organization to propose solutions.

Also notice that as EU citizen I don't trust a US pre-IPO company's CEO with conflict of interest to suggest solution on resolving global security matters. Especially since he admittedly has no control over how the technology of his own company is deployed in global conflicts[1]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/06/10/ant...

Post reply on HN