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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#951

Post by gclawes »

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…

I think the worse possibility his he actually believes his safety bullshit, believes that he and people who think like him are the only ones with the special knowledge required to do safety correctly, and that they're justified in accumulating total power of this market to people who think like them (which just so happens to be Anthropic).

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#952

Post by catigula »

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…

This notion that Dario cares only about the bottom line is simply misinformed, in the most charitable interpretation.

It doesn't track at all with any of his prior stated beliefs or past actions. It's an absurd claim. It's a baseless conspiracy theory, smuggling in traditional conspiracy mechanics for plausibility.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#953

Post by markmiro »

I read it and makes sense what he’s saying, but comments seem very against.

Maybe the problem is it’s that Dario is saying it, so it’s easy to assume he has bias, which he does.

I’m not inherently opposed to open models, even at the frontier. But it could make sense for an adversary to give away something for free for some time to create dependence, or to tip the balance of power

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#955

Post by QuantumNoodle »

Oh cry me a river. You went full tilt ahead scrambling before safeguards were set up and now want to set up safeguards protect your models from commoditization. Now that you've gotten your footing you preach about the dangers of powerful AI models.. Cats out of the bag. The fu*k you think was going to happen when you were building these tools? A Utopia?

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#956

Post by swat535 »

srj wrote: post #602
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".

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?"

> The bombing of the school was horrible, but it was a mistake

Please don't say this. It wasn't a mistake.

The very FIRST strike packages of the war are very clearly vetted. If you are involved in military planning, you know this.

They doubled tapped it after seeing people flee inside the save the children.

The goal here was to teach IRGC a lesson and demoralize Iranians, which clearly backfired.

Furthermore, US has been contentiously bombing civilian buildings, bridges, hospitals throughout the war. They have also bombed water desalination plants and other key infrastructure.

You have the US president threatening to use nuclear weapons and end the Persian civilization.

Let's not pretend.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#957

Post by idontbelonghere »

rubslopes wrote: post #367
ajyoon wrote: post #172

To 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…

If this is really the risk, then we should approach LLMs like atomic bombs: the US should reach out to other nations so they all agree on no one developing any more AI models. That's the only way you could possibly convince another party to stop. The US should set the example, not conveniently keep all the spoils.

Experts say Iran is 6 weeks away from making Claude 2

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#958

Post by abotsis »

ianm218 wrote: post #879
abotsis wrote: post #643

China releasing open weight models, powerful or not, does nothing to prevent their development of models they’ll use for evil. Nor does it stop someone from abliterating a non-Chinese model and using it for evil. Sorry- I don’t see any other reason aside from Anthropic protecting their own interests.

What are you arguing against? He doesn’t advocate for a ban on Chinese open source or non Chinese open source.

I’m simply making the point that any model can be abliterated to sidestep guardrails. It’s similar to the argument that open source software like nmap or netcat shouldn’t be allowed because it can be used for evil.

To continue the analogy, he’s basically asking for some magic guardrails in nmap that doesn’t allow it to be used for scanning a network you don’t own. Of course even if you could add that- you could modify the source to bypass it.

It’s basically “open weight models are a public good if you can guarantee safety” .. which you can’t. So the only viable alternative is a hosted nmap that requires you to prove you own a network before scanning it. Which is impossible. So it’s all the right words and sounds nice, but making an impossible ask.

Re: Our position on open-weights models

#959

Post by abotsis »

culi wrote: post #698
abotsis wrote: post #643

China releasing open weight models, powerful or not, does nothing to prevent their development of models they’ll use for evil. Nor does it stop someone from abliterating a non-Chinese model and using it for evil. Sorry- I don’t see any other reason aside from Anthropic protecting their own interests.

Is it possible to abliterate a closed model? I was under the assumption that you needed the weights

No- and that’s the point. Any open weights model, regardless of the origin can be abliterated. So effectively he’s saying he’s all for open weights models as long as they’re safe, which by the very nature you can’t guarantee.
Post reply on HN