It's not about Anthropic vs. OpenAI anymore

tech

It's not about Anthropic vs. OpenAI anymore

AI models have progressed to the point where their capabilities have real political consequences. Dealing with those consequences will require collective action.

TL;DR

The U.S. government is taking significant control over the release of advanced AI models.
OpenAI's GPT 5.6 and Anthropic's Mythos models are facing government review before general release.
This process could lead to delays, limit economic upside, and slow down AI development and data center construction.
The industry is divided on who is responsible for this regulatory shift, but the problem affects all AI labs.
A clear and sensible release process is needed, but the U.S. government lacks the expertise and capacity for effective testing.
There are genuine safety concerns related to AI in cybersecurity, biorisk, and alignment that need addressing.
Addressing these concerns requires industry-wide collaboration, trust in independent groups, and alignment behind the best available regulatory options.
The political consequences of advanced AI capabilities necessitate collective action from the industry.

Weiter zum Originalartikel

clem 🤗 reposted

MTS

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Why is restricting open source AI models structurally impossible?

@ClementDelangue, co-founder and CEO of @huggingface:

"Open weights are fundamentally different than an API. The way you can restrict it is very different."

"If you remove an open weight from Hugging Face, then it's still gonna be on ModelScope, which is like the Chinese equivalent, or it's gonna be on torrent platforms. You can't really block it because it's open, almost by definition there's gonna be some ways to access them."

"It's a different game for APIs. If you're using an API provider or a cloud from China, obviously you're sending your data. And they could cut your access or bias your access. That's a much bigger problem."

"For open weights and open source, it doesn't really matter where it comes from because you get all the control, you get all the transparency. There's no way to trick you, bias you, manipulate you, remove your access."

clem 🤗

or maybe let's make sure the most important technology in the history of humanity is not controled by just 4 men? Aka let's push for open science & open-source AI to distribute capabilities, power and wealth!

Yann LeCun reposted

clem 🤗

Aravind Srinivas reposted

Russ Salakhutdinov

I kind of like the new narrative:

Open-weight-model-dominant world = full AI communism.

It feels a lot safer than the world where

Open-weight models = nuclear weapons with humanity's annihilation

I think we're making progress. We just need a couple more gradient updates with a big learning rate and we will be fine.

clem 🤗 reposted

Andrew Curran

David Sacks on cyber guardrails. It's difficult to say how much of this is directed at Anthropic and OpenAI, and how much is directed at the administration. https://t.co/FnGlZwrOof

Yann LeCun reposted

Jitendra MALIK

Highly performant open weights frontier models such as Kimi are a competitive threat to OpenAI & Anthropic, but probably for everyone else these are a win. Hope more US entities will release top quality open weights models as well. Government regulation of AI models to prevent public harm could be done equally for proprietary or open weight models. Classic arguments in favor of open source software apply to AI models too.

Elon Musk reposted

Adeo Ressi

I think there is now overwhelming evidence to say: DO NOT TRUST OPEN AI

David Sacks reposted

The All-In Podcast

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It

@DavidSacks:

“I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies.

I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain.

And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data.

They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product.

This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own.

And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China.

An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model.

And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem.

And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks reposted

Chief Nerd

DAVID SACKS: “Here's the thing that's so hypocritical … OpenAI's argument is we're not stealing anything. We're taking the output of the NYT and we are deriving our own model weights. That's exactly what these Chinese models are doing.” https://t.co/ZZ3QRmSTRG

David Sacks

Nobody is saying that all software has to be open source. What they’re saying is that open-weight AI should be allowed. By implication, they’re rejecting your company’s incessant machinations to kneecap the open model ecosystem. Read the room.

David Sacks

The entire tech industry (save for Anthropic) has come out in favor of open source AI.

So what happens next? Will Anthropic change its lobbying efforts? Not likely. Now the gaslighting begins:

“Nobody is trying to ban open source.”

“We just want to limit who can use it.”

“We just want to limit who can contribute to it.”

“We just want to limit how powerful those models can be.”

“We just want to make sure the guardrails (we lobbied for) can’t be removed.”

The net effect will be the same. They won’t stop until they kneecap open source. The rest of the industry needs to watch these guys like a hawk.

David Sacks reposted

bak

David Sacks says Anthropic and OpenAI's backing of the call to regulate the pace of AI is performative.

"Did they disclose in their S1, as a risk factor, that they plan to slow down their frontier model development? The answer, I'm sure, is no way. Because that would signal to investors they're going to let all their competitors catch up. So this is all performative.

These companies have no intention of slowing down. So why are they doing it? There are basically five reasons.

One is virtue signaling, and that can never be underestimated as a motive in Silicon Valley.

Two is CYA. If something terrible happens, they get to say: we wanted it to stop, you made us keep going, it's not our fault, it's yours.

Three is regulatory capture. Dario wants an FDA for AI. He won't stop until he gets it. And to get it, you have to keep spiking the cortisol and panicking people.

Four is groupthink, even a religious streak to it. There's an elite cadre of engineers who believe in RSI, and if OpenAI hadn't followed Anthropic's lead, it could have lost talent.

But the fifth, the one he thinks matters most, is monopoly masking.

Peter Thiel once said monopolies pretend to be commodities and commodities pretend to be monopolies. A year ago you had five major labs in the hunt to be the leading model. Now we're really down to two. And when you're in that situation, you want to pretend the market is much more competitive than it is."