| ▲ | GodelNumbering 6 hours ago |
| In the first paragraph, > Anyone who has read my past writing should know that I don’t regard such bans as a useful measure, Later (on banning chip sales to china) > we should crack down on the rampant smuggling and workarounds used to obtain access to such chips. If you truly believe that bans don't work, the same applies to hardware too. Furthermore, Dario says later "To address these concerns, I do support the following three measures...": 1. ban chip sales to China 2. crack down on distillation 3. all capable models should go through mandatory safety testing Just so happens that all these moves commercially benefit Anthropic. If Dario really wanted to make a point, it would land a lot better had Anthropic released a single open-weights model |
|
| ▲ | erwald 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Bans on Chinese open weight models being used in the US and bans on AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment being exported to China are two extremely different things, and it's not inconsistent in any way to oppose one and endorse another. |
| |
| ▲ | basch 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | is it export if they take control of the entire island manufacturing it. banning export is short sighted and doesnt address any problem at a scale longer than months or maybe at most a few years. | |
| ▲ | doom2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > bans on AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment being exported In some ways, a ban on semiconductor manufacturing equipment exports is also a good way to keep the price of consumer electronics and other goods that depends on memory high because of the potentially decade+ long shortage of RAM we're looking at. I wonder how people here would explain to someone outside the tech bubble how it's good, actually, that those prices keep rising because it means we're preventing China from getting better at AI. |
|
|
| ▲ | chorizo 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At this point, Anthropic releasing a sonnet 4.x class open weights model would be a positive PR move that doesn’t affect their bottom line. |
|
| ▲ | theptip 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If you truly believe that bans don't work, the same applies to hardware too. No, software and hardware are different. You can very plausibly prevent smuggling of physical objects, and you very obviously cannot prevent smuggling/diffusion of open source bits-on-disk. |
| |
|
| ▲ | usef- 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Banning software/data from being put on the internet vs banning GPU hardware is fundamentally different though, isn't it? |
| |
| ▲ | niklasrde 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How so? | | |
| ▲ | cortesoft 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You don’t see how it is easier to regulate physical objects than it is to regulate bits of information? | |
| ▲ | usef- 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are many possible international producers, it doesn't need to be physically transported, every household could near-instantly have a copy, it puts local business at a disadvantage if they can't use the same tools as international, etc. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MiSeRyDeee 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Exactly, the letter will make much more sense if they are releasing open weight models and China is distilling their models and keep them in secrets for evil purpose |
|
| ▲ | ASalazarMX 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| TL;DR: We like money, and Anthropic should stay in a position to make loads of it despite any competition. |
| |
| ▲ | combobyte 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We like money, and Anthropic should stay in a position to make loads of it despite any competition. In a position to lose loads of money, maybe. Even without China eating their lunch, there's zero reason to believe Anthropic will ever be profitable. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway63467 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They might just merge with OpenAI. Right now it seems they are still working out who might come out on top but they are both burning tons of money and essentially offer the exact same product up to some minor differences, economically it makes much more sense for them to collude instead of compete for the same market. They might be colluding already for all we know. If they manage to push out foreign competitors they can probably divvy up the Western market quite profitably as their domestic competitors would have less than 20 % (?) market share together? | | |
| ▲ | combobyte an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't see how merging or colluding fixes their problems, though. Both companies burn cash at historic rates because inference costs a lot more than people want to pay for it. Even if they somehow manage to crowd out any competitors and fix the price of AI, that price can't be much higher than it is today or people will just decide to stop paying for it. No amount of collusion can solve the core economics problem of compute. | | |
| ▲ | bizzletk 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They could ~halve their training costs with collusion. Instead of each paying full price to generate a SOTA model in competition, they could share the result and split the cost. This gets even simpler if they merge. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a34729t 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The hammer is open weight models, and the anvil is Apple's m7 chips with higher memory bandwidth |
| |
| ▲ | lenerdenator 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's more or less how China has historically treated its competition. The CCP has routinely intervened to give their country's corporate interests an advantage. Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to sell a car as a non-Chinese company in China, you had to hand over pretty much everything to a local company and go into business with them. When Google wanted to operate an uncensored search engine in China, they found themselves hacked. It's not altogether unusual for IP to be transferred to Chinese manufacturers for production under a license agreement, then to find goods made with that IP to be for sale for far cheaper without payment made through the licensing agreement. Or maybe they just don't bother with a licensing agreement at all and do counterfeit products straight-up. There are more examples but turnabout is ultimately fair play. |
|
