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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#821

Post by itemize123 »

himata4113 wrote: post #119

Demand #1 weakens america and everyone around them Demand #2 Why does this matter? The answer was that it does not. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49007610 ) Demand #3 This doesn't exist. You cannot have 'safe' opensource models, it's simply impossible. You can always post train sufficiently capable models to become 'unsafe'. The flip side of that is that sufficiently capable models are banned therefore it is…

completely agree. while I share dario's concerns, his letter is very intellectually dishonest.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#823

Post by forafistfulof »

nxtfari wrote: post #394

Surprisingly incoherent for Anthropic and Dario (cue peanut gallery — “always has been!” No, I don’t think so. I think this is new). It seems to me like there is just no good answer to how one could possibly stop open weight models from being used for nefarious purposes. How are you going to enforce guardrails on open source? The only way is to turn the USA into a 1984-type totalitarian surveillance state (even more…

Well,maybe try talking to people and understand that not all seven or more billion people on the planet must conform to the interests of a handful of english speaking capitalists.

Instead of bombing them, try justice. Yes, it is more complicated. And yes, you will have to give, and not take.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#824

Post by pipes »

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

Are you saying the USA is somehow as repressive as china?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#826

Post by egorfine »

This letter is so full of contradictions.

> Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good

There are no models that don't have dangerous capabilities. There is not a single human in the world that doesn't have a dangerous capability.

> authoritarian government [] build AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US

Yeah, they will do that no matter whether you support the existence of open weight models or don't. In fact, they have probably already done that. I would say "deal with it" but there is nothing you can do actually.

> authoritarian regimes have stolen and used AI

Monkey looking away meme.jpg

> powerful AI models may be misused

Small AI models may be misused just as well. I would say it's the small models that are the problem: cheaply deployable, easily fine-tunable, fast.

> once weights are released they cannot be withdrawn

Exactly. It has been already done. So?

> We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China

I agree. We should have competition and I'm rooting for China to design their own chips. They wouldn't if we let them buy our's.

> We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations

Well, at this time it's already irrelevant. We have GLM-2, DeepSeek, K3, which are already SOTA and can be used for distillation.

> All sufficiently capable models [] should go through mandatory safety testing

Problem is, it's unenforceable legally. Models are just math and all previous attempts to ban maths have failed and simply pushed US back. I will not be asking US government permission to calculate matrixes of my choice.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#827

Post by hoihoi »

m3h wrote: post #207

Someone 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".

[dead]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#828

Post by sc077y »

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…

A lot of the heads of AI labs are talking about this including Dario, Demis and ELon, they are seeking to do a sort of decentralized peer review system, where the competitors have incentive both for self interest and global interest to flag their competitors for actual risks, similar to the Fable situation where Amazon contacted the white house.

The idea is to have an early access distribution of the models to the big labs, including chinese, and let each lab run it's benchmarks. If there is a potential security vulnerability then it would be flagged and the local gov, US or China, would block the publication until the matter was resolved.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#829

Post by jeroenhd »

Aboutplants wrote: post #21

Every single risk he identifies as a concern regarding China is exactly my concerns with the US having absolute control. Literally the exact same concerns

They're Americans trying to appeal to other Americans. Of course everything they do is justified and everything everyone else does is an evil scheme to plot the ruin of American freedoms. How else are you going to convince the dementia patients in charge of the country?

If China, India, the EU, and everyone else has any sense, they should take this letter to heart as much as Anthropic wants the American government to.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#830

Post by yard2010 »

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.

Sam altman, his friends, and the axis of evil is not "everyone on earth"
Post reply on HN