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.