> Yeah, thank god those models have arrived.

+100.

Thanks God. these open weight models exist.

And the fact Anthropic is currently trying lobby against these models is despicable.

There is no scenario where putting the key of cybersecurity in the hands of few chosen ones is even remotely acceptable.

No government, no company, no entity should have this power.

Soon or later it will be abused (By 3 letter agency or by an insider/leak).

Delayed disclosure is dead already.

So just give the same capabilities to everybody and stop to fuck around.

▲

paimapi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

they're quite literally trying to create a techno-priest class who are the only ones with access to the hidden knowledge of salvation (ie generation)

similar to priest classes, they warn of impending, world-consuming doom, talk up how they are uniquely positioned to interpret the sacred text (ie create models), while casting aspersions on heretics who offer a similar mode of salvation but whom they describe as being morally and ethically bankrupt (ie GLM lacks safeguards!)

all this in spite of, well, lots of evidence that they themselves have repeatedly done the very same immoral and unethical acts (the many times Anthropic employees have had incompetent sandboxing/configs and too-broad prompts that led to actual intrusion attempts)

they even have the irregular obsession with sex covered (at least it's sex-positive?). the only thing they're missing is an outfit though I guess there is this: https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/2063798788310118655

▲

estearum 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Stop this nonsense. These things aren't nukes, they're more like regular weapons. And yes, every home should have one.

▲

estearum 3 hours ago | parent [-]

yeah totally bro, that's why your Glock is doing half of your job right now.

Tip: If someone was spending billions of dollars figuring out how to equip your Glock to stand up, unlock a door, walk around, talk to people, and make decisions... it would be dangerous.

▲

txrx0000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

General intelligence has very different adversarial dynamics compared to nuclear weapons.

Explained further here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49094348

Though there is further nuance in agentic vs non-agentic AI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49736149

▲

estearum 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm legitimately interested in this argument, but simply stating that good vs evil are in equilibrium is nowhere near enough.

> There will be new adversarial games when everyone's smarter (bio/cyber offense/defense), but those games are always symmetrical in the long run

This is an article of faith, not an argument.

▲

txrx0000 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The continuation of the sentence you quoted is "and there will also be new cooperative strategies."

This is not faith, but an observation of Earth's past. If it were the case that intelligence is itself harmful, then it should not have evolved in so many species.

And even if we look at only humans, we do not see dumber populations being more prosperous. One could argue about the definition of "dumber" and "prosperous", but it is at least true in my own judgement of value, which I suspect is not too far from the average in modern society. One could also argue that bio/cyber adversarial games are qualitatively different from all past adversarial games, but you could argue the same thing for other qualitatively different games that emerged in the past, when they were new. But we're still here. So this argument hinges on burden of proof, and I think that's on Anthropic.

Also, as mentioned in that first linked comment, centralizing AI development increases a different kind of speciation risk: a small group of superintelligent humans, likely the ones currently running the top AI companies, splitting from the rest of humanity.

	▲	estearum 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No one I've ever heard/read is claiming intelligence itself is harmful. You should delete that idea from your brain and stop responding to it. > One could also argue that bio/cyber adversarial games are qualitatively different from all past adversarial games No, one doesn't need to argue that they're different from all past adversarial games. You're a victim of survivorship bias. The games that people like to play and allow to be played are ones that equilibriate. That does not mean that all adversarial games have this feature. There are an infinite number of games that do not equilibriate. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why the AI arms race is one that does.

▲

matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The only danger here is allowing them to monopolize it. We need to secure the same capabilities for ourselves.

	▲	estearum 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree! Same with thermonuclear weapons and Glocks-on-autonomous-Segways!