Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#901
The Anthropic CEO has an entitlement problem. I read his opinion twice and somehow in his worldview, if any other country gets better at AI than the US, the apocalypse will come and the US will be no more. Or something along those lines.

Secondly, he's like the Trump of tech: China, China, China.

Thirdly, he needs to cut it out with the guardrails and other safety BS he's peddling. If we're going to get Skynet, we will get it no matter what we do.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#902
The Anthropic safety position may be counterproductive to US AI competitiveness.

Between China and US theres a defacto unequal distillation environment. China has no qualms about distilling off other labs outputs. US labs actively avoid it for legal reasons. Whatever the actual legalities, US labs have a relative hand tied behind their back. If they didn’t, it’d be easier for Grok, Gemini, and Meta to catch up.

If we care about US competitiveness, then one solution could be either OpenAI/Anthropic enter distillation agreements with other US labs. Or we decide to make distillation public domain / legal.

Until then the only models Anthropic/US Govt could realistically regulate would be in the US market. And that’s as much a losing game as tariffs.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#903
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…

HuggingFace was only able to defend themselves with open models. No need to project into the future. Look at the timeline of events for that incident.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#904
I thought his points were legitimate and well argued. I think that it's very easy to say "X should be unrestricted". I also think that eventually one of these models will be used to do something truly destructive and insane and that some level of "compelled responsibility" to the open-weight model ecosystem is inevitable.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#905
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…

I must have missed the part of the letter where China's cooperation was necessary.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#906

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…

I realized the other day that Anthropic will end up getting the reputation Facebook has today.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#907

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…

Banning hardware and banning software are very different things, and the latter is orders of magnitude easier than the former. Physical and non-physical things are different!

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#910
To me, the most weasel words are “”All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing.””

I bet via regulatory capture that evaluating Chinese models will be a very slow process if Dario gets his way.

I enjoy using Opus, but I am in the process of ripping it out of my toolkit and leaving it on the ground behind me, as I walk away.

Post reply on HN