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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#961

Post by yogthos »

monk_grilla wrote: post #417
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".

> Someone who until yesterday did not seem bothered by his technology being possibly used to bomb elementary girls school in another country... I might have missed something but wasn't the big story that Dario refused the Department of War's demand to use Anthropic's models for such purposes?

“We are also left with no further information about the potential use of artificial intelligence in the targeting decision. The CEO of Anthropic admitted in an interview with Bloomberg that he does not know if or how their artificial intelligence software may have been used to select targets for U. S. attacks in Iran, but he was quick to shift blame to the military, in particular to an unnamed ‘human’ making final targeting decisions.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/06/usa-four-mont...

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#962

Post by shivanshuag »

It seems impossible to read this post without getting political. Dario seems to be saying that AI in the hands of USA is good but in the hands in China is bad, which is a very US centric view.

There is a whole world outside the two countries which see neither as a good actor. As a reminder, USA was the first country which dropped an atomic bomb on civilians.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#963

Post by Jyaif »

alevskaya wrote: post #647
ajyoon wrote: 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…

I was a genetic engineer for ~20 years and have worked on frontier LLMs for the last 8. I used to engineer viral vectors and studied how to evade human immune systems for gene therapies... The biorisk scenarios that the AI safety folks flog are fever-dreamed fantasies that have only the most tenuous connection to biological reality. As someone who cares about the real bio-risks of natural pathogens, I get pretty tire…

> fever-dreamed fantasies

Reminder that what local LLMs are achieving today is the "fever-dreamed fantasies" of 5 years ago.

People really need to internalize that we will eventually have the technology for giving everybody the equivalent of a world class scientist locked in their basement that is willing to do anything.

No one knows the timeline, but it's inevitable (barring societal collapse or some kind of legislation)

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#964

Post by cdrnsf »

There's a real irony in, rightly, highlighting the authoritarian nature of the CCP while failing to acknowledge the direction and inclinations of the present administration with which Anthropic et al are doing business.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#966

Post by andix »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #663
andix wrote: post #302

China doesn't seem to think that powerful open weight models are a serious threat to them. Otherwise they wouldn't release them. Those models could also be used by their enemies against China. I'm not a fan of the Chinese political system, but they usually think things through, and do smart things for their benefit.

China is worried about AI. In fact, Chinese leadership has expressed more worry than US leadership. "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 e…

Actions are much more interesting than words. If the CCP didn't want Kimi K3 weights to be published, they would stay secret. Period.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#967

Post by stiltzkin »

srj wrote: post #602
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".

The bombing of the school was horrible, but it was a mistake. I could see essentially the opposite argument: Anthropic should be more involved as to prevent mistakes in the future with better technology. Imagine Claude asking the decision makers at CENTCOM "this looks like a school, are you sure you want this added as a target?"

[dead]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#968

Post by hoppp »

radu_floricica wrote: post #755
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…

I was reading the post and thinking "wow, that's pretty clear for a smart man used to writing for other smart men. it'll be really difficult to misunderstand". I read the first couple of comments and stand corrected. A much simpler summary: - open models good. - smart models _can_ be bad - smart open models that can do biotech work are dangerous. worth the hassle of certification _if_ we can get everybody on board wi…

The biotech work is not even these LLM models.

Alphafold and others solving the protein folding problem are revolutionary.

An LLM can max provide an instructive tutorial protocol for lab work, but designing novel proteins is not it's job.

I am interested to enter the bioinformatics space eventually and the regulation happens at the DNA printer level. Anyone can design yeast nowadays that excretes heroin, but the DNA needed for the genetic modification won't be printed by anyone. As long as DNA printing tech is extremely regulated it's all fine, if home printing becomes a thing then on the other hand maybe people won't even need AI to print deadly pathogens at all. A database lookup will do.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#970

Post by [deleted] »

chorizo wrote: post #628
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…

At this point, Anthropic releasing a sonnet 4.x class open weights model would be a positive PR move that doesn’t affect their bottom line.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN