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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#811

Post by daitangio »

Who decide the if a model is safe to use?

The strongest competitors or a government law? I prefer the second.

Suppose Chinese model are super-risky: is it better to have them in the open, so everyone can review the problems or have a closed-model?

Security is better at open Linux is open source because development is better.

I understand Anthropic for sure, but trying to limit open weight model seems the opposite direction IF security+safety is the major concert.

The Genie is ALREADY outside the bottle, and there are already plenty of companies offering inference services

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#812

Post by realusername »

What a load of nonsense, I can debunk a few of the worst points :

- "safe" AI doesn't exist, it's not a thing, AI providers can't distinguish between good and bad use of the AI, the filters they put in place are mostly PR.

- The US government IS an authoritarian government. Whoever wrote this doesn't know the difference between authoritarian and dictatorship

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#813

Post by boonzeet »

"My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments" - already lost me there by quoting JD. Vance.

"...found that “other global powers’ robust progress in AI is challenging US economic competitiveness" - other countries having a slice of the pie is preventing the US having the whole pie!

"...secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks" - yes, those powerful open-source AI models like ChatGPT... oh wait.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#814

Post by ozgung »

twelvechairs wrote: post #599
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…

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

We don’t have to guess. Here is a recent survey:

People in Many Countries Now View China More Positively Than the U.S.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many...

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#815

Post by prymitive »

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 of good old “it’s really good idea, I love it, great effort … BUT”

Mixed with “if kids can’t get semi dangerous drugs from the back of my van then they will be forced to buy from even shadier, more dangerous dark web van”

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#816

Post by Schlagbohrer »

yamal4321 wrote: post #803

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 coope…

US is using as much fossil fuel as possible for this AI build out. China is leading the world in an unprecedented green transition, so their AI usage is overwhelmingly going to come from solar, wind, and nuclear.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#817

Post by ListeningPie »

How are Point 1, "We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China," and Point 2, "We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations," addressed by making open-weight models illegal?

Point 1 is about restricting the sale of chips, not models. Point 2 concerns companies using closed models to train their own models through distillation.

The real issue is that open-weight models can run on much less powerful hardware, making the current AI business model, where companies train a powerful model and gatekeep access to it, less relevant. Once open-weight models become good enough, much of the future revenue for today's leading AI labs could disappear. But just as Microsoft still has a market so will the large AI houses have one, but the moat will not be providing AI responses.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#819

Post by vb-8448 »

mcfedr wrote: post #791
vb-8448 wrote: post #744

"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

Who is in the best position and has the necessary knowledge to make this kind of evaluation?

Who is trying to define what is "too dangerous" or "not too dangerous"?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#820

Post by axegon_ »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #155

In the first paragraph, > Anyone who has read my past writing should know that I don’t regard such bans as a useful measure, Later (on banning chip sales to china) > we should crack down on the rampant smuggling and workarounds used to obtain access to such chips. If you truly believe that bans don't work, the same applies to hardware too. Furthermore, Dario says later "To address these concerns, I do support the fol…

Carl Wheezer from Temu, what a clown...
Post reply on HN