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

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#231

Post by ashu1461 »

areoform wrote: post #186
cogman10 wrote: post #28

> Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. > All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing. Yeah, this is anthropic advocating for a ban on open weight models. Who runs this test? What happens if this test is too costly or the administrator refuses to allow certain people to participate. This is exactly how the US has banned goods in the past, by r…

When Fable was yanked, it was said to be (in part) due to the "jailbreak" of instructing Fable to "fix this code" — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687 Dumb question. If "Mythos-class" models are such a problem, then... why not just let it fix everyone's code? There can't be more than a few million to tens of millions software businesses / services / regularly used F/OSS projects on Earth. Why not just give…

I think eventually there will be Mythos grade AI which will be released which can solve a lot of bugs, even right now opus/fable can fix more things which companies can even keep track of.

The problem is how to make sure such AI is released safely. The same AI that can solve bugs can also find bugs in authentication or loopholes in critical systems.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#232

Post by sterlind »

skybrian wrote: post #194
cogman10 wrote: post #28

> Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. > All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing. Yeah, this is anthropic advocating for a ban on open weight models. Who runs this test? What happens if this test is too costly or the administrator refuses to allow certain people to participate. This is exactly how the US has banned goods in the past, by r…

Regulation is not a blanket ban. Regulators (presumably government agencies) can review models (of any kind) and approve or ask for changes. There are many other regulated industries, like drugs (the FDA), cars (NHTSA and EPA), airplanes and rocket launches (the FAA), radios (the FCC) and so on. That's not unusual. Regulation is normal for stuff that might be dangerous.

cryptography, too. remember when that was regulated? strong cryptography had to be carefully controlled as a munition, for national security!

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#233

Post by CamperBob2 »

andy99 wrote: post #64
cogman10 wrote: post #28

> Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. > All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing. Yeah, this is anthropic advocating for a ban on open weight models. Who runs this test? What happens if this test is too costly or the administrator refuses to allow certain people to participate. This is exactly how the US has banned goods in the past, by r…

You forgot “what is the definition of ‘sufficiently capable’”. Presumably it’s anything that competes with Anthropic. If they’re around in a year, presumably they won’t care about Fable level and will only think that whatever competes with Claude 7 or whatever needs to be restricted.

GPT-2 was 'sufficiently capable' according to Amodei: https://explainx.ai/blog/dario-amodei-gpt2-openai-open-sourc...

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#234

Post by chrismsimpson »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #221
chrismsimpson wrote: post #188

A sober look at actual rogue nations and their use of AI shouldn’t have us fretting over that particular hemisphere

Yes, it should. It absolutely should. The United States making questionable decisions and behaving recklessly and dangerously as a country does not suddenly make China any better. China is as worse as the United States, if not more worse, by many measures.

Hmm.. how many illegal wars has Xi started, just in his most recent term of office?

China is nowhere near as bad as the US at this point. The rest of the world is changing lanes to not be implicated in your car crash of a country.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#235

Post by gr_norm »

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…

It's baffling that they thought the mental gymnastics in this blog post would make them look better. I'd rather they simply fall silent on the issue; I would respect them more (or at all) for it. Open models obviously threaten fierce competition, if not outright destruction of their bottom line. But no, they needed to try and argue that they have the moral high ground for attempting to singularly consolidate power over all human labor.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#236

Post by dmix »

fwip wrote: post #127
dmix wrote: post #104

Anthropic will continue being a victim of their own naive positions on AI safety. They keep dancing around it but their communication is essentially pro-regulation if you read between the lines.

Or if you read the lines. "All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing."

If you listen to interviews with Dario and Daniela Amodei it's pretty obvious they think they will be the ones helping define the regulations on AI instead of a group of partisan politicians who don't understand technology, lean on experts from random political think tanks/non-profits, and operating based on fear of foreign competition.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#237

Post by mej10 »

It is obviously not going to be until some really bad series of cyberattacks or a chemical/bioweapon attack before anyone takes regulation of models seriously.

They are _obviously_ (please convince me otherwise) going to be capable of carrying these terrible things out almost completely autonomously at some point in the near future, in potentially clever ways. Therefore we must, at some point, ban or heavily regulate them. Seems we should start figuring that shit out _now_, as progress has remained very fast and regulation and enforcement take forever on these time scales.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#238

Post by Cookingboy »

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".

Yeah Dario is just flat out disgusting in term of how shamelessly hypocritical he is.

Do people actually believe that he gives a shit about the well being of the Chinese people? If the U.S. starts a war with China start bombing Chinese cities Dario would absolutely jump onboard supporting it. He'd probably make Claude to add DeepSeek and Moonshot HQ to the targeting list lmao.

He is super pro-Israel as well, and never once has he brought up the risk of the Israeli government using AI to control and repress people in other countries.

He is also 100% onboard with working with Palantir, who has the explicit goal of using AI for population control and repression and building out a surveillance state.

Meanwhile the world's most repressive government is North Korea, and obviously they don't even need AI to achieve that.

If you talk to people in China they'd laugh their ass off at Dario's notion that somehow they are all getting oppressed by DeepSeek or Kimi.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#239

Post by sterlind »

m_ke wrote: post #230
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…

Yeah some real main character energy from Dario as usual. I'll never get why he thinks China would just sit there and let the US dominate them in AI when all it would take is a few of their boats blockading Taiwan to put a stop to it all.

wouldn't stop AI companies from continuing to develop using their current infrastructure.

the West could retaliate by halting shipments of photoresist and other materials to China.

meanwhile, Intel second-sources Nvidia and starts pumping out GPUs.

the economic fallout would be devastating as trade wars and export bans on both sides make Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs look like NAFTA.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#240

Post by Eggpants »

Talk about a giant whiff.

I was hoping they would announce their first open weights model, perhaps an older model they don’t offer anymore, but no. Instead he get this bs statement that reeks of “dam it I’m so close to being a billionaire” desperation. Not even acknowledgement of how much data they stole from others yet he whines about distilling.

It’s like his goal in life is to be a Scooby-Doo villain.

Post reply on HN