Our position on open-weights models

para_parolu

As expected they will try hard to use government to kill competitors.

brcmthrowaway

The ban on distillation seems hypocritical. "F#$% you, I got mine!"

thierrydamiba

“Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good…” A bit confused on this part, what model doesn’t have dangerous capabilities?

Handy-Man

Their position seems fair to me - sure it does help them as well, but I don't necessarily disagree with the risk they are laying out.

kingwill101

China this and China that. Playing right from the playbook..

akersten

Demand #1 is standard political nonsense Demand #2 is hypocritical ladder pulling Demand #3 is contrary to freedom of speech so they can clarify however they like, their position is still a stinker

birdsongs

"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, and use them to achieve permanent military superiority or perpetrate incredibly deep repression of their own people." Hmmmm.

richwater

This is a whole lot of words to say "we don't support open weight models". It's so obvious they are hoping to regulate out their competition rather than compete

CrimsonRain

TL;DR: It is ok that we digest all information we can get, (il)legally and/or (a)morally because we are the good guys. Trust me bro. It is not ok if others digest from us. They are bad guys. Ban them pl0x.

mjorgers

So the argument is basically: This technology is too dangerous so only _we_ should have access to it. We’re the good guys and only we can ensure a safe use of this technology. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

syntaxing

> Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good. Who decides what is dangerous and what isn’t? Lawmakers usually have the say but Anthropic can easily bribe… I mean lobby them to favor your viewpoint.

euazOn

This is more terrible PR for Anthropic.

jazzpush2

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

Aboutplants

Every single risk he identifies as a concern regarding China is exactly my concerns with the US having absolute control. Literally the exact same concerns

j_rosenberg

"China has limited domestic production capacity, and therefore, due to the scaling laws, cannot build more powerful models than the US without US chips" source: Trust me bro. There are hundreds of articles showing that China have developed their own chips and have a massive manufacturing capacity. This blog post feels like is pondering to the brain dead Fox News audience.

htk

"To summarize my and Anthropic’s position, we have not and are not advocating for a ban on open-weights models as a category." Translation: If it's so strong that it threatens my business, ban it. "We should instead focus on keeping powerful chips out of authoritarian hands, " Translation: Let's kneecap competitors. "stopping industrial-scale distillation" They stole the work of every book author, and now are trying to say their AI's output should be protected from competitors.

nicce

As an act of good faith and proof, they could stop spending the record-breaking lobbying money for couple years.

modeless

> All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing What happens if a model fails the test? Surely one can use Kimi K3 for evil, somehow or other. What now? "Mandatory safety testing" implies consequences for failing, yet Dario has nothing to say about what the consequences should be. He says he doesn't advocate a ban but it's hard to imagine what his alternative would be if he won't say it.

zkldi

Guys. Guys, you got it all wrong. We don't want to ban open-weight models! We just want to ban the competition guys! Very different. -- The ridiculous anthropic/openai strategy of selling shovels at a loss in a gold rush isn't going to play out, and the hilarious thing is that these AI companies are going to create tons of value and _capture none of it_. Their only path to profitability is if they get to capture it and they're going to do everything to do so. Put it this way: *all the blog posts that Anthropic and OpenAI are putting out are DESIGNED to scare you so that you let them capture the market*. ...and "distillation attacks" (hilarious framing of "saving the output of our models")... Whatever.

cogman10

> Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. > All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing. Yeah, this is anthropic advocating for a ban on open weight models. Who runs this test? What happens if this test is too costly or the administrator refuses to allow certain people to participate. This is exactly how the US has banned goods in the past, by requiring a stamp and then refusing to issue it.