Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#921
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…

On the one hand, Darius argues:

> ...banning the use of these models by US businesses does nothing to address this risk, because bad actors are unlikely to be legitimate US businesses. It would protect US AI companies from competition, but that has never been my goal.

But on the other, he argues:

> All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing.

Models that don't pass safety testing would be banned. Darius does not appear to be against banning models. He wants the government to have a regulatory body that has the ability to ban models. Then Anthropic can do regulatory capture of that agency and control what models are permitted to be released.

Also, during this mandatory safety testing, models would be blocked from use, and by the time the testing was done (probably years) the models would be obsolete.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#922
So he is against China for its hypothetical usage of AI against civilians but is not against US and Israel that already use AI provided by him to operate a real genocide that kills thousands and thousands of Gaza children in the most horrible ways? Very ethical.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#924
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

> Also everything hes saying about China (and other actors) many outside the USA would say about the USA.

yes he is writing it as usa citizen running it a us company.

I dont see how "usa is also.." is relevant here.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#926
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…

[flagged]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#927

What Dario misses time and time again, is that people don't trust the US to create aligned AI anymore. His entire strategy rests on the assumption that the US (and their government) are exceptional. This is clearly false to the rest of the world.

Another reading is that the US is exceptional not because of any qualitative measure. It is the exception to all other countries, by definition, because it is the country where Anthropic is HQd.

China ends up being “bad” not based on objectively looking at evidence and data, but because it is simply not the US.

Business nationalism, basically.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#928
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…

"privileged access to chips", nailed it.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#929
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…

The problem is you can't ban open models.

All you can do is say that Americans have to pay whatever stupid prices OpenAI / anthropic / Google / Grok wants to charge you, while China uses, and attacks with, open models.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#930
post #919

Ban distillation of our outputs, but our distillation of the sum-total of civilisation's intellectual output – proprietary or otherwise – is fair use? Either everyone licenses, or nobody does. And if you can't enforce licensing bans for everyone, the de-facto loser is those who you'd probably want to support the most, start-ups and universities, while your adversaries gain the upper hand. The strongest argument for r…

On the other hand, the open weights models could crawl and annotate and rl the training data that Anthropic and OAI did in exactly the same way, and take the exact same legal hits. They use distillation because it's cheaper not to do so.
Post reply on HN