Wow
My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments—not solely the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), although the CCP is clearly the most capable threat—build AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US, and use them to achieve permanent military superiority or perpetrate incredibly deep repression of their own people.
What is that shit?
Truly this is an insane take coming from an American company. Really batshit crazy.
Imagine the dread for Europeans to see these powerful countries obsessed at weaponizing their AI. Open source model are not even part of that problem. Open source is usually the opposite end of the secrecy of weapon design and manufacturing.
But no evil CCP bad can’t do their open weights AI but OpenAI can equip the military without any oversight.
I hope the American imperium will crumble and fall. They created so much fucking suffering for the rest of the world.
This guy is full of shit.
Let me rephrase his points:
- We can surveil, CCP should not.
- We can steal data, others cannot.
- We can dominate the world, others cannot.
Who the fuck gives Anthropic the right to use all that training data for their model?! And if other companies distill their models, THEY are to be protected by laws?! Cry me a fucking river.
And don’t even get started on how he says that China is a represive regime (which it is) while leaving the US as it it wasn’t. Like they won’t “CCCP” the fuck out of the population using Anthropic’s models.
Hasn’t the output from LLM already been ruled ineligible for copyright protection?
No idea. The whole copyright topic is a clusterfuck when it comes to LLMs. The matter of the fact is: most AI companies steal data to train their models and they don’t care about licenses or copyrights.
Copyright should not exist
Are you for real?
“The whole copyright topic is a clusterfuck”, full stop.
Except for use in llm
In most countries, the output of a single prompt will not be copyrightable. However, once someone starts arranging the output into something more, then copyright can be applied.
Overall, it depends on the country, but in some they are asking their legislators for clarification. Many are trying to apply pre-existing copyright laws to LLMs.
The U.S. Copyright Office wrote up a report about this and included a list of how other countries are handling it.
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdfYes, as the other commenter said, in most jurisdictions (i think China is the only exception?), generative AI outputs (this covers more than LLMs, like diffusers and other modern image generators) are not eligible for copyright. However, while a human made arrangement of the outputs gets copyright protection, in the US at least, it is a very narrow scope of protection, literally only a direct copy/paste of large swaths, and doesn’t extend to the individual AI generated components.
There’s nothing else they could say. They have to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been poured into this thing. Anything less than world domination and complete control will make it impossible to ever make up for all that money.
AI is great (sometimes), but the centralized command-and-control cloud model is not. It needs to die. So we should all use the opensource models and ditch the hyperscalers.
I agree. I’m an open source maxi and go out of my way to only use open source models.
And I don’t mean open weight models, I mean fully open source models where you also have access to the training data and checkpoints and stuff like that. In my opinion, go open source or GTFO.
I only scrolled over it but every time I stopped to read another sentence, it got worse.
From what I understood open-weights models are too efficient, too cheap, don’t consume enough energy, and don’t require to construct as many super data centers. That’s why they are… dangerous?
The schizophrenia of the AI industry is laid bare in this fever dream of a statement. My god, we really cannot afford to have tech CEOs running things as a society. All they seem to be interested in is killing us.
I think the two principle arguements he’s making are open weights allow for misaligned models and these models are using distillation to more efficiently train.
I don’t really care about the distillation point - it seems it’s just hoovering up the internet with extra steps. It’s really up to Anthropic to deal with by enforcing their ToS. Sauce for the goose etc…
I can see the argument about alignment but it’s not a new problem. In the FLOSS world we generally don’t put restrictions on use on the code we release even if it might get used for bad stuff. It certainly wouldn’t hurt for the authorities to test open models to find out where the guardrails are but ultimately rather than banning the tech you need to enforce the law against the people that use the tech to do bad stuff.
Fuck “alignment.” If I want to make an AI dungeon master, it’s almost impossible to do so (at least the way I enjoy tabletop RPGs) because the model can’t promote violence or other sorts of evil.
I get it, if you’re making a chatbot, you don’t want it suggesting wanton murder to fifth graders and grandmothers. But not every valid use of AI falls into the cleanly filtered worldview of Anthropic or OpenAI.
Or maybe I have it backwards. Maybe in the future everyone will flock to porn and ultraviolence because it’s the only way to find genuine humanity in an AI-sanitized world.
FUCK this hypocritical piece of shit
Every time this guy speaks on this topic, he puts his credentials in doubt.
He’s very good at what he does, which is 100% marketing.
I hate misanthropic so much, I honestly struggle to put it into words
Just ask Claude to help!
