There's also a very strong implicit double-standard in the discourse, along the lines of "it's dangerous if non-US uses this in military fields, but it's fine if the US does so".
Our position on open-weights models
681–690 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#682Yeah, no thanks.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#683> My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments... Authoritarian government doesn't always mean bad - look at Singapore What's more dangerous is country with bunch of war mongering lobbyists who can also influence elections (oops, sounds like USA) > My secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks But you are working with DoW and P…
> praises Trump's administration and Vance in his letter
sure there, buddy...
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#684Re: Our position on open-weights models
#685Schrödinger'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…
> compared to his own closed and overpriced ones I don't understand how Anthropic or OpenAI can have overpriced models, yet losing money like there is no tomorrow. Taking their own numbers at face value, they claim a revenue of 24 billion (ARR, a dubious tool), spending 21 billion in operating losses and another 11 billion as "R&D" funneled straight to Microsoft pockets. That before all investments they are committin…
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#686> My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments... Authoritarian government doesn't always mean bad - look at Singapore What's more dangerous is country with bunch of war mongering lobbyists who can also influence elections (oops, sounds like USA) > My secondary concern is the risk that powerful AI models may be misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks But you are working with DoW and P…
(comment got too long, continuation) > All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing Why? And how do you design those tests? For example, bombing girls school in Iran - is this allowed use according to you or not? If not allowed use, then how do you guarantee that you don't have a separate agreement with DoW which makes it allowed use and only your model passes it?
There was a time we bombed a bus or van with kids in it, but we admitted it and apologized for the mistake. Nobody wants to be bombing kids, first because they're innocent, but second because there is no military advantage to it since it's bad PR.
Many of these targets were identified before Anthropic or OpenAI even existed.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#687Schrödinger'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…
> compared to his own closed and overpriced ones I don't understand how Anthropic or OpenAI can have overpriced models, yet losing money like there is no tomorrow. Taking their own numbers at face value, they claim a revenue of 24 billion (ARR, a dubious tool), spending 21 billion in operating losses and another 11 billion as "R&D" funneled straight to Microsoft pockets. That before all investments they are committin…
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#688Schrödinger'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…
1. For Dario as CEO "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it” -Upton Sinclair
2. For Chinese open weight models - following Jin Yang’s silicon valley strategy- https://youtu.be/a0NjDx5UJsg?is=xm-S_WuARmQiPHYh
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#689Just like batteries, the automotive industry and in fact most machining.
We really ought to boycott Chinese products from stolen tech and patents from entering our markets
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#690Someone 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?
> Two sources confirmed to NBC News that Palantir’s AI systems, which draw in part on large language model technology, were used to identify targets. (Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, said he “can’t go into specifics” when asked about this on CNBC, but said that Claude was still integrated into Palantir’s systems used in the Iran war.)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/mar/...