| ▲ | zoogeny 2 hours ago |
| It is very difficult to see this move as anything other than Anthropic pulling the ladder up behind itself. They can dress it up in "safety" all they want, I find it hard to interpret this in a charitable way. This reminds me of how dark-pattern common wisdom in Web 1.0 website development was to ban external links. Then how social apps prevented the export of data and actively worked to nerf significant interoperability through APIs. But this is a tool, not just a data moat. Like a knife that degrades your ability to create knives. Or like a text editor that prevents you from implementing a text editor. |
|
| ▲ | kingcauchy an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's also hard to imagine them not doing this with any of the products they're building. "You can't use Claude to build an agent because that competes with Claude Code, you can't use Claude to build a design tool because that competes with Claude Design, you can't use Claude to build an email tool because that competes with Cowork." |
|
| ▲ | reissbaker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's becoming extremely important to support open-source AI, especially legally. Anthropic is willing to go totalitarian this quickly; imagine how much worse they'd be willing to do with government-granted monopolies that ban open-source competition (like they've repeatedly pursued). It's a little shocking and gruesome how quickly they're willing to tip their hand. They want to replace all software engineering with their own product, and then silently kill anyone making competing software. What other products will they launch in the future? Better hope you aren't in a space they want into: they'll cut your legs out from under you. Oh, and training on your data from the internet? Ha ha. Terms of service apply to other people, not them. Parasites. |
| |
| ▲ | sometimelurker 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > like they've repeatedly pursued). source? | | |
| ▲ | reissbaker 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Many, many, many public policy positions; for a clear-cut example, they eventually supported SB 1047 [1] which would have banned open-sourcing any model trained with over 10^26 FLOPS (i.e. what Anthropic reportedly used to train Mythos). Their "Responsible Scaling Policy" [2] — a set of policy proposals that includes recommendations for government regulation — specifically calls out requiring "third-party controls" on model weights to prevent access; for developers to prevent "modification of models" such as fine-tuning (obviously impossible for open-source or open-weight models); prevent usage of model weights in "Automated R&D in key domains" which they specifically call out AI development as a key domain (again, obviously impossible for open-source); etc etc. They want to ban open-source AI and are not shy about it. 1: https://campustechnology.com/articles/2024/08/26/anthropic-a... 2: https://www.anthropic.com/responsible-scaling-policy |
| |
| ▲ | ai_fry_ur_brain 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Open source doesnt matter if you still need to make 100k year to have your own mediocre model. There is no magic compression.
There is no magic post training.
Your phone or laptop will never do what you think its going to be able to. There are limits to what consumer hardware will ever be able to run, in its current form. Open source isn't going to save us if they gatekeep access to hardware, which idk if you've been paying attention. They dont plan on making consumer grade hardware more powerful, they want to rent that power to you. Technological serfdom is coming if they get their way. | | |
| ▲ | reissbaker 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You don't need to be able to self-host it. It's fine to pay someone else for it. If it's open-source, competition will ensure inference providers support it well enough, and if an open-source provider is dumb enough to nerf their model for (useful) coding tasks, there's plenty of incentive for inference companies to do some lightweight finetuning to restore the capability. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | AgentME 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They believe they're going to eventually develop AI that's capable of recursive self improvement into world-redefining super-intelligence. I wouldn't expect someone in that position to risk giving away their lead. I expect we're going to see more of the top labs selectively holding back their best stuff. |
|
| ▲ | ndhbxyd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Only the priest is allowed into the sanctum is a rule that is as old as society. It is created for one reason but gets violated for another. The human mind is made of layers to handle predictions over different time horizons. Due to unpredictability in the universe contradictions between layers will keep arising. We make up stories to cope. So there is Control and there is Illusion of Control. |
|
| ▲ | rzmmm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it's part of their marketing. Anthropic is not really ahead of other labs but these releases make it seem like they are reaching singularity |
|
| ▲ | teaearlgraycold 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It turns out the most dangerous thing is competition. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jknoepfler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is a rather specific irony in pulling up the ladder when your roof is on fire... |
|
| ▲ | willsmith72 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't see it as a ladder at all, unless you claim Anthropic built their own models by training off of other closed frontier models, violating those models' ToS |
| |
| ▲ | reissbaker an hour ago | parent [-] | | They trained their models on everyone's data on the internet, and certainly violated many website terms of service. | | |
| ▲ | willsmith72 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | that option is still available to everyone to be clear, I'm not saying what they did in scraping to learn was ethical. It wasn't. But I just don't see it as pulling the ladder. The ladder is still there. | | |
| ▲ | reissbaker 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "You can't take code produced by our service to make competing services, but we can take code you produced to compete with your service (i.e. software engineering)" is pulling up the ladder IMO. If they can from-scratch train a model without using human-produced code, I think they're within their rights to stop humans from using their model to compete with them. But if they're training on GitHub/Hugging Face/arXiv/Common Crawl/etc, which certainly includes many open-source repos whose licenses they're violating, I don't think they should be legally allowed to prevent people from using their model to produce code that merely competes with them. They themselves have taken other people's code in order to compete with software engineers. I hope they get nationalized and either the models are open-sourced or the profits are owned by the public. | |
| ▲ | airza 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t know if you’ve tried to scrape or programmatically download a lot of websites recently! It’s not possible to repeat their data collection process anymore. | | |
| ▲ | willsmith72 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | maybe i'm just pedantic. it's possible you could only build models like these from scratch until a few years ago for that reason, but isn't that an (illegal,unethical) early mover advantage? to me ladder pulling would be: - web scraping for model training becomes illegal, with heavy punitive penalties - training models above a certain compute threshold requires government licensing - expensive third-party audits are required before deploying models above a capability threshold |
| |
| ▲ | marketingess 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
