Our position on open-weights models

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?

Until he advocates for an independent body akin to IAEA under the control of the UN, I'll call everything he says about AI safety and the greater good bullshit.

Pardon my French. Eat a bag of dicks.

Of course you didn’t advocate for the bans of open weight models. I will concede that.

It’s only the at you did literally everything else that you can to eliminate competition because otherwise there is no moat.

And half of the US economy is propped up by this AI bubble.

This isn’t about China doing evil things with models, most of which that you accuse of China - you and the US have already done and are doing.

The most obvious one being double-tapping a girls school.

Anthropic models directly integrated into Palantir’s Maven. The blood is on your hands.

Here’s something to chew on, maybe China is looking to integrate AI into its military and weaponise it as a direct response to the US doing that first.

So please, spare us the moralising.

As a closing thought: who the fuck even gave you the mandate to be the arbiter and judge of right and wrong, evil and good?

EU must cooperate with China in same way as with US. They're both same level of evil.

I think I lost some brain cells reading that copium. LLMs providing a “Permanent military advantage”.. dumb!!

Asmodeus' sinophobia and anti-communism is so 1950s. It is absurd to read it from a 21st century CEO who is under the age of 80.

Honestly no need to read this drivel.

They have raised billions of dollars and are hoping to justify that by being a monopoly or oligopoly and their worst enemy- the pareto principle, is biting them in the ass. So now they’ll turn to policy to safeguard what they initially hoped could be achieved with money and technology.

It is that simple, they are the very definition of an unreliable source on this topic.

So he is against China for its hypothetical usage of AI against civilians but is not against US and Israel that already use AI provided by him to operate a real genocide that kills thousands and thousands of Gaza children in the most horrible ways? Very ethical.

Fuck hypocrites with "Usania good" attitude… ffs xD

>Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good

For convenient definitions of "dangerous"

Imagine if all oil, electricity, water, internet, or anything of importance were to be served by a small cartel only. Mainly due to regulatory capture.

Yeah, no thanks.

What nakedly self-serving bullshit.

The US doesn't have some magic wand that prevents "incredibly deep repression of their own people."

Insurrection, wars of choice, ICE, Palantir, Flock -- keep up man, we're the baddies.

I think he asked LLM to rephrase "I want open models to be banned, but sound like I don't want it but mean it somehow".

Anthropic’s second biggest issue is they increasingly rent when others buy. Even if model value compresses, owning your vertical stack protects your margins upstream, and potentially downstream in applications.

But the biggest issue is this. Many hate Dario because he’s smug, he caps usage, and because OpenAI effectively ran a counter-positioning campaign to paint Anthropic as undemocratic.

Who is he really and what are his motives? None of you know, really.

He wants to restrict China from access to chips. All that will do will accelerate their development of competing, sovereign hardware.

As an example take North Korea. Sanctions didn't stop them from developing nukes and delivery systems.

Both Dario and Altman are shit , but Dario is consistent. I don’t know who is worse.

Nobody will ever see this but if you're harping on responsibility and your product was created using the world's generational output, your responsibility is to make it as free as the training was as available to protect the world from impact. Greedy schmucks.

Reads like fearmongering about oppressive and violent applications of AI that the Chinese government hypothetically could deploy, which the US government is already actively working on in the meantime.

1. We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China, and we should crack down on the rampant smuggling and workarounds used to obtain access to such chips.

Regulate others, but not us, please. And f.u. Jensen for your tweet.

2. We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations.

Boogeyman to still not allow Chinese models but pretend to support open-weights. Also, please ignore our distillation of research, illegally. That's different!

3. All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing.

...That we author. Oh, and please ignore our own easing-of-guardrails when it comes to money: https://x.com/NoahLebovic/status/2081277517709922501

If you gate models for safety you aren't safe. There will always be actors with ungated models. Better that we use ungated models to improve our security. It's an arms race.

Microsoft Corporation, October 31, 1998

Our position on Linux

Fud, fuddly, fuddy-duddy fud ...

I’m done reading anthropic propaganda

This is nothing but a post made by the scared CEO of a company that is now facing fierce competition from Chinese labs and losing its competitive moat, nothing more, nothing less.

If decades of fighting have failed to stop piracy, I’m sure nobody can stop China from sourcing high end chips. Unlike piracy, I’m happy that Chinese labs are releasing open-source models, so people in developing countries are no longer at the mercy of this capitalist bullshit.

I don’t feel the need to rebate any of his points, lots of people here have done it already pretty well. I’m just baffled he thought releasing this letter was a good idea smh.

This man sees himself as your master.

Do you accept?

Makes sense since ICE, Israel are so much nicer & kinder than the Chinese

I guess they have to make some statement about this, but we don't have to care. This is like the zoo making a statement about the employment of clowns. Clowns a a circus thing, nobody asked the zoo's opinion.

As an American I’d gladly take payments from China to feed them my Claude transcripts for distillation. I’m surprised I haven’t heard of such an initiative.

It's so ironic to me the way people will say "china should not have these chips" meanwhile they manufacture like 99% of all the electronics we have in the united states.

Ironic to oppose giving AI tech to “authoritarian governments” while approvingly quoting the authoritarian-wannabe government of the US and framing that government as the good guys.

Boris here. This post does not give us good publicity so I will refrain from commenting. Please wait for another demo thread of a new feature of ours or AI appraisal blog post and I will gladly go into as much detail as I can to give us as much hype as possible!

Yikes

First 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)

> For example, I worry that biology will have a strong attacker-defender asymmetry, where sufficiently capable models may be able to quickly weaponize pandemic-level viruses with widely available materials,

If he had just left that bit out it wouldn't be so obvious that he's just clutching at straws at this point. In some twisted sense it's almost sad to see.

> 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

> Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good

This statement (and the entire post) couldn't possibly be more two-faced.

Open-weights models by definition have "dangerous capabilities" (according to Anthropic's own definitions of "dangerous", not mine), you can't bake in guardrails that can't be finetuned out.

So, after carrying out the single largest intellectual property heist in the history of mankind, scraping and continuing to scrape the entire Internet and whatever data they can get their grubby hands on,

> At Anthropic we’re committed to cracking down on industrial-scale distillation

uhuh

I don't really believe their reasons

Knew Anthropic were the bad guys.

Dude is churning out brain rot slop. That text read as if it was vibed out on the couch

Imagine chinese regime getting access to powerful models who bombed school students in Iran amusing AI !

As an European I really dislike this consistent anti-Chinese narrative.

It's not China starting a war every few years, now causing a global economic fallout in Iran, it's not China threatening to annex Greenland/Canada/Panama, it's not China attacking foreign countries and kidnapping their leaders, it's not China who has been found to spy and intercept the communications and movements of its citizens and its allies and their leaders for the longest time, it's not China bombing civilians or stopping countries from obtaining basics like food, gas or oil.

I'm not saying that China is a paradise and US is bad, nor the contrary. We could make similar lists about most of the biggest countries out there.

I'm simply stating that this never ending US exceptionalism "US has to be the first and at the frontier of military, technology and this and that, but does not need to comply with the rules of the institutions it itself created" was already sickening and annoying before, but increasingly malign in the last decade and strongly accelerating as of recently.

I miss the time US CEOs were globalists and used their influence to advocate for a simpler world.

I stopped reading at "...that don’t have dangerous capabilities..."

The mental gymnastics here are incredible.

I will be so happy if/when the AI bubble bursts and we don’t have to deal with Dario’s god complex anymore.

> My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments—not solely the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), although the CCP is clearly the most capable threat—build AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US,

Begging, ugly crying, spitting for that sweet-sweet regulatory capture. These nerds need to be bullied harder.

This is just another case of a business insisting their people should be in charge of the evaluation of the safety. Worked really well for Boeing right?

Also I find it incredibly difficult to hear any company in the US worry about repression of people when financial repression is happening here. I’ve been to China and seen what the services to the public are like. Meanwhile the US funds and employs AI weapons in an ongoing genocide.

At the end of the day it hurts U.S. consumers to not have Chinese cars mainstream in the market. We lose out on features and stagnate on innovation because we are not pushed to compete.

I can’t imagine this would be any different — banning open weight models would hurt us in the long run. The point is to beat the competition, not suppress it.

There should be no limits on open or custom models. Too often safety is a synonym for surveillance and control. It’s a natural consequence, intended or not.

I am curious… why can’t distillation be stopped?

As a side not Im not against protectionism, but it has to be across the board and the same in all industries with no excrptions. We’ve let all these industries die on the vine due to cheap cost in foreign countries. It could very well happen to ai.