Asmodeus' sinophobia and anti-communism is so 1950s. It is absurd to read it from a 21st century CEO who is under the age of 80.
[deleted]
Our position on open-weights models
861–870 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#862Anthropic/Dario getting a lot of hate in this thread, but the argument he makes is rational if you believe for one second that AI is important to national security and that it can, or will soon be incredibly dangerous is misused. People pointing out that this position benefits his company might be overly reductionist in how they think the world works. I believe Dario and Anthropic about their belief that AI safety is…
Dario is a fascist who wholeheartedly believes Yankee exceptionalism and its divine right to brutalize anyone in order to achieve its goals. Anthropic's models have helped bomb innocents over and over and over again, and will continue to do so.
If you think he gives half a shit about safety you've had a dozen lobotomies too many and should reconsider every decision you've ever made.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#863Schrödinger'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!!)
Very good point. However, if one reads the transcript of the speech that Xi Jinping gave to the World AI Conference on 17 July, we see that he he is very much in favour of AI safety.
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202607/17/content_WS6a5a1172...
> Second, we should strengthen risk-awareness and ensure that AI is secure and controllable. AI should be a trusted tool for humanity. We should take seriously the various types of inherent and secondary risks that AI may trigger. We should put in place laws and regulations, technological monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems in order to strengthen the line of security, prevent abuses and malicious use, and ensure that AI is always under human control. In the meantime, we should jointly oppose overstretching the national security concept in the field of AI and placing one country's security over that of others.
Now, let's contrast another important part of safety here. Amodei puts the fact that this will need to be a global effort as a mere note that sure, China will need to help too:
> Note that to be effective, testing would need to be global, which means even the CCP would need to be on board. I think this may actually be possible: as I wrote in The Adolescence of Technology, limited cooperation around preventing AI biological weapons may be possible because it is in China’s interest too.
International collaboration is the focus of Jinping's speech. But one imagines "cooperation" Amodei has in mind if "do what I say" while Jinping has more collaboration in mind here. (Even if you think 'china bad' they deserve credit for collaboration for their open weight models).
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#864Schrödinger'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…
I don’t disagree with your point on Dario’s conflict of interest. I def think the models are expensive. But why call them overpriced? Compared to what? Even if we take the margin reports at face value, we don’t know their training costs, etc. Curious if this was more of an emotional take or if there’s actual evidence behind it.
Compared to how much they want to pay. This is always what 'overpriced' means, as far as I know. The seller's costs/profits/margins aren't a concern for the buyer.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#865The whole article boils down to two points:
1. “I’m fine with ‘em, as long as they’re useless”
2. “The only authoritarian regime which can be trusted with such power is the one which benefits my company”
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#866This person and company are disgusting. Engineers should grow a backbone and stop supporting anything related to Anthropic
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#867before anthropic's ipo, their models must be the best. :)))
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#868Schrödinger'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…
Let’s be honest, you don’t need a 3T model for bad actors, in fact you would be better off training a smaller focused model if you want an evil GPT.
Good point.
I remember the discussions when 3D printers first appeared. People were thinking “bad actors” (“terrorists” then) would use them to print weapons.
People love to speculate and exaggerate. But they generally have poor judgements and rarely predict the future correctly.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#869Someone 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".
You act as if anyone was happy to hit an elementary school. I'm sure everyone involved feels it was a terrible tragedy
Source?
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#870dario, most of the world wants CHINA to win because the USA is the bad guy. you should be worried about the USA having these models.
Anthropic is a US company, so it is lobbying the US to enact regulations to serve both its interests and the interest of safety. What else should it be doing? I imagine Anthropic (or at least many of the people who work there) are fully aware that USA is the bad guy right now, but that doesn't change what levers they have and do not have available.
[deleted]