I don't think open-weight models are what motivated these specific comments. It's a way of deflecting OpenAI's failure with HuggingFace/etc as a natural consequence of powerful AI instead of a specific problem with OpenAI's recklessness.

▲ HarHarVeryFunny a day ago | parent | next [-]

How can it be about anything other than China / open weights ? If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that.

If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race.

You can't simultaneously claim China is only somewhat keeping up by "distilling" your models, and not acknowledge that therefore it's your models, not China's, that is dangerously accelerating frontier capabilities.

US AI companies "help, we're destroying society - please stop us".

▲ fwlr 21 hours ago | parent [-]

    If OpenAI wanted to slow down their own research and/or releases they could do that without the government telling them to do that.

     If Anthropic and OpenAI both genuinely want deceleration, then just make a joint agreement to pause releases and stop trying to front-run the race.

No, in point of fact, they can not do this. To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors, exposing them to severe personal liability and in some jurisdictions also jail time.

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1) If the AI companies act in reckless fashion and cause economic harm they may be facing class-action lawsuits, and maybe jail time for key individuals who knew the risk.

2) Your argument is like saying that a car company that wants to push back the delivery date to make the car safe could be sued by investors for not rushing it out the door.

3) They can cancel acceleration and borrowing plans.

▲

greggoB 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty

Is openAI not technically still a nonprofit? In any case, this argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying Boeing didn't have a choice wrt the 737 Max because had they waited, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty.

	▲	jibal 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OpenAI and Anthropic are Public Benefit Corporations ... the GP is completely wrong.

▲

jibal 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is completely wrong. OpenAI's governing charter explicitly prioritizes safety and benefit to humanity over profit, speed, or market dominance, and commits the organization to doing the very things you are saying they can't. And Anthropic is incorporated as a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation. Also, the Business Judgment Rule allows wide discretion in selecting strategy. Finally, jail time requires criminal violations such as fraud.

▲

watwut 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> To do so would be a breach of fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors, exposing them to severe personal liability and in some jurisdictions also jail time.

This is not true.

▲

ofjcihen 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

“I can’t stop doing x because I got myself into x and if I quit doing the x I agreed to do despite my apprehension about x then I could go to jail. But guys we should really slow down doing x.”

Unless the only thing he’s asking for is for his own company to be nationalized then at this point he’s saying one thing and meaning another.

▲ jrm4 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

In the words of the meme, "why not both?"