Live data from Hacker News

Our position on open-weights models

anthropic.com

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#131
post #38

[flagged]

I can understand why the Western media calls something that has an official name of CPC (the Communist Party of China) as CCP (Chinese Communist Party? Not sure here). What puzzles me is - why ordinary people always repeat this wrong abbreviation. Is it like “I never check the sources, I trust everything that Western media publishes”?

[deleted]

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#132
post #38

[flagged]

I can understand why the Western media calls something that has an official name of CPC (the Communist Party of China) as CCP (Chinese Communist Party? Not sure here). What puzzles me is - why ordinary people always repeat this wrong abbreviation. Is it like “I never check the sources, I trust everything that Western media publishes”?

More of a "Everyone knows what CCP references and I'd have to include a distracting explanation if I want to use the more technically correct acronym"

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#134

You can put lipstick on a pig, it'll still be a pig "Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models." --- "We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations" "All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing" These are in tension with advocating for open weight models. Not direct but enough that it calls into question the first statement. What…

I have no idea what to do about the government interference. There's probably not a lot anyone can do.

However, your last point is quite a strong one. Corpos aren't just going to stand there with their collective pants down, and there's not a lot anyone can do to stop them from protecting themselves. There are ways they can get what they want without getting caught.

Remember when the US tried to ban strong cryptography in the 1990s, and how well that went? They may have more leverage with AI because it's a bit harder to hide large scale computing usage, but I don't think it's impossible at all.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#136

You can put lipstick on a pig, it'll still be a pig "Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models." --- "We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations" "All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing" These are in tension with advocating for open weight models. Not direct but enough that it calls into question the first statement. What…

It's political doublespeak. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#137
I was pleasantly surprised by this release and the tone at the very beginning, but quickly it is painfully obvious that it's blatantly requesting a ban on open-weight models. The absurd demand for some safety arbiter by World Police America is farcical.

Yeah, the rest of the world is going to bow out of your busted idiocracy, guy.

Further, Anthropic needs to can it with the horseshit distillation bullshit. No, you aren't really the secret sauce, and this is basically trying to con stakeholders by pretending that there really is a moat, only you just need to add more crocodiles.

A significant percentage of innovations in AI lately has come from China. China is now making their own seriously competitive hardware, and they can steal content just as effectively as Anthropic to train their models. Why wouldn't they be competitive?

The pathetic claim that if you just stop distillation and prevent hardware smuggling and Anthropic and OpenAI will have the same moat is delusional. I mean, more correctly it's simply fraudulent, and he clearly knows it's bullshit meant to convince much stupider people.

"My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments—not solely the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), although the CCP is clearly the most capable threat—build AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US, and use them to achieve permanent military superiority or perpetrate incredibly deep repression of their own people."

This sort of stuff betrays a stunning lack of self awareness. The US are the worldwide risk. The US are the ones threatening allies and bombing 10+ countries. The US are the ones carrying out war criming and pillaging, pirating and burning? The US are the ones with the guy threatening to use nuclear weapons on a weekly basis.

If Anthropic remotely believed their bullshit, they would shut down today and burn the hard drives. But they don't, and the pathetic call out to Vance (please daddy, ban those dangerous models!) is deplorable garbage.

This ridiculous, shameless "note" has an audience of one: JD Vance.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#138

Demand #1 is standard political nonsense Demand #2 is hypocritical ladder pulling Demand #3 is contrary to freedom of speech so they can clarify however they like, their position is still a stinker

Yep. > We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations. "We consume all intellectual property for our model but you cannot do the same"

It's not even IP. Model outputs are not protected (to the best of my understanding).

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#139
post #38

[flagged]

I can understand why the Western media calls something that has an official name of CPC (the Communist Party of China) as CCP (Chinese Communist Party? Not sure here). What puzzles me is - why ordinary people always repeat this wrong abbreviation. Is it like “I never check the sources, I trust everything that Western media publishes”?

[dead]
Post reply on HN