> To summarize my and Anthropic’s position, we have not and are not advocating for a ban on open-weights models as a category. We should instead focus on keeping powerful chips out of authoritarian hands, stopping industrial-scale distillation, and requiring safety testing of all sufficiently capable models, open and closed.

▲

mjorgers 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe I should’ve expanded a bit on my comment. I didn’t mean “we” as in Anthropic directly—even though they certainly are advocating for restrictions on how to train AI systems by proposing mandatory safety training—I mean the argument that American AI labs are somehow more responsible than their Chinese counterparts.

It’s especially jarring when just last week OpenAI—an American company—accidentally hacked Hugginface when performing safety testing on an upcoming model [1]. If they have the ability to turn off all guardrails when testing out their models—or when selling them to the military—then the safety training is only there for show. If they can pick and choose who should have access to their most powerful model, surely they are trying to act as the world police?

[1] https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-secur...

▲

fwn 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Demanding "required safety testing" is demanding a ban. Otherwise the testing would be inconsequential, right?

I'm sure he didn't mean just a "lobotomized to be worse than Anthropic products" badge for the test-passing models.

If a ban is the implied consequence of failing his "safety" tests, that means that Anthropic was and currently is advocating for a ban on some open-weight models.

▲

Nevermark 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you replying to the article or me? I have not stated any position. The quote is Anthropic's and was relevant to the comment it followed.

My views:

I find testing of SOTA models problematic.

I find not testing of SOTA models problematic.

Neither view on testing is without merit.

The right way forward is unlikely to be as simple as either of those, but some carved out balance between them. And it is likely to change over time.

▲

fwn 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, to clarify: I was not arguing against you but against the statement you quoted, made by Dario.

Your quote was very relevant, as it highlights the foundational lack of intellectual honesty behind the whole Anthropic statement.

	▲	Nevermark 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I felt like the grudging "if we must" nature of his acceptance of open weights came through honestly. :) It is clear he isn't a champion for them.

▲

yadaeno 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is not demanding a ban at all. Any sane regulation of AI will involve safety testing. This seems like common sense.

▲

jwitthuhn 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If models that fail the safety testing are banned, then asking for that testing is asking for a ban. That you believe any sane regulation would involve such a ban doesn't stop it from being a ban.

▲

yadaeno 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You are taking a hardline libertarian position. We safety test cars, roads, bridges, pharmaceutical. What happens when the unvetted AI model starts teaching people how to make biological weapons, or convincing kids to kill themselves?

	▲	pastel8739 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The parent is, to my reading, arguing that Anthropic is indeed advocating for a ban. I do not see them making any judgement on whether that ban is justified or not. I don’t think that claim is hardline libertarian.