Hate to break it to you Dario but the way things stand right now the world at large trusts the Chinese establishment a lot more than the American one.
Our position on open-weights models
81–90 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#82> We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations. Also Anthropic: AI firm Anthropic agrees to pay authors $1.5bn to settle piracy lawsuit https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y4jpg922qo
I wish this were higher up!
They pirated my work and now they want government protection from other people doing the same.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#83The concerns are legitimate but the proposals are nothing more than a stopgap solution.
If US wants to maintain engineering superiority, we needs to invest in it -- education, research and infrastructure. Bring in top researchers across the globe and not make it harder.
China is building infrastructure for the future generations and investing in growth sectors while the US is cutting of university grants and spending billions on a war without clear path to resolution.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#84If this is about safety, am I being too naive & idealistic to think that a "Kamar-Taj" rule would solve some safety issues?
The "Kamar-Taj" rule is, no knowledge is forbidden, only certain practices. If a model gives you detailed instructions on how to kill all humans, the knowledge itself isn't the problem. The problem is the person who acts on it.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#85[flagged]
> The NSA and the CIA with the same models, on the other hand, would use them exclusively for the good of the common man.
the real argument is that CCP will leverage AI against US interests, which is obvious. it's weird how so many people pretend that they are citizens of the world and above it all.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#86What’s blocking Anthropic from fighting Chinese companies abusing their services? Why go nuclear against all open weight models? Testing and compliance is technically banning.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#87> where sufficiently capable models may be able to quickly weaponize pandemic-level viruses with widely available materials if someone figures out a way to give an LLM full operational control over a virus lab, we've got a whole different set of problems than the ones Dario is describing
If someone gives LLM control of such lab my best guess is soon they have no lab... Actually giving LLMs control of virus lab might be best thing one can do for continued existence of humanity.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#88First thing I'm going to do with my uncensored Kimi K3 release is to engineer a virus that only targets gatekeepers in the AI field.
(obviously this is a joke)
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#89He says that using the set of questions and answers from one model to train another model (deatilation) is cheaper than training the model without those datasets. But he didn't mention that training any model from a set of texts and books is much cheaper than writing those books in the first place. In other words, it's ok when Anthropic learns from others, but it is not ok when others learn from Anthropic.
It's also cheaper to just pirate the author's work, which Anthropic has also done.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#90If you read between the lines, this piece is just “Oh my god we (OpenAI and Anthropic) accepted too much investment and are totally fucked if these open weight models are competitive, please rescue our equity bags by banning open weight models and ensuring we can charge the maximum possible price for tokens.”