I want to play with every kid, but my dad says that kid is bad. Every kid should be pat down by my dad, otherwise I don't want you to play with them, it's good for you.
Our position on open-weights models
761–770 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#762"My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments" might want to look closer to home on that one...
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#763I copy pasted this whole debate in Claude Sonnet 5 (web). The model came up with a summary but the thinking trace was entirely omitted.
Well, if you ask me, that is dangerous.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#764Schrödinger'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…
Add to that the >$700B OpenAI already committed to spend in infrastructure through 2030!
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#765Schrödinger'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…
> The reality is
And you know this how?
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#766Someone 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?"
You’re absolutely right to push back. It was indeed a school. I’ll save in my memory for the future.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#767There is an odd assumption behind this post that you can put effective guardrails on a model before releasing it. I thought nobody had such technology?
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#768"Open-weights models—it does not matter whether they come from China or anywhere else—do potentially present a higher risk than closed models, because it is very difficult to apply guardrails to them or monitor their usage, and once weights are released they cannot be withdrawn."
Translation: "we won't be able to monetise it"
"We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China"
Translation: "we can buy them cheaper when there's less purchasing competition".
"Distillation is a much more compute-efficient process than training models from scratch. It allows China to build much better models than its number of chips would ordinarily enable."
Translation: "we've been outsmarted and lost our advantage because their way is faster and cheaper"
I think it's a bit rich to complain about distillation, when they been plundering the internet for years for copyrighted works to train their models on without permission.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#769"open weight" models are not open source. They are still deeply proprietary. It is not possible to know what they do or what they are capable of without interrogating them since we have no access to their source materials. The only difference is the Chinese labs have allowed 3rd party inference providers run the proprietary models for them since they cannot do it themselves due to domestic GPU compute constraints.
Keep seeing this trope again and again. By same logic are open source code "open source"? If we don't see the development environment attached to these projects, are they truly open source? Heck, why not include software philosophy and methodology and the Jira board including the book that inspired the architecture?
The argument is an endless slope and as such essentially pointless.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#770To 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'm dismayed that I had to scroll past so many cynical cheap shots to find a comment that actually addresses the core point. I have yet to hear a single compelling plan for how we will prevent bioweapon development or massive hacking campaigns. For those who are skeptical of Dario's motives here, it's not enough to call out apparent hypocrisy, you need to suggest an alternative plan that addresses these concerns.