HN user
So what is the issue here?
The issue seems to be the US only likes competition when it is winning. Markets in Asia are meant for cheap labor and resources, they're not meant to actually compete. /s
Yes, while the Chrome/Chromium hardware decoding, or any other uses of the GPU, like WebGL, was always impeccable on Linux
Have you seen the massive blacklist Chromium maintains?
Fair choice but do you also boycott US companies assisting in the Gaza genocide and the unprovoked attack on Iran?
I agree, it's unfortunate the headlines seem to have become 'rewritten in Rust' (not a bad thing) and not 'vibecoded in a week without review' (a bad thing).
Right and what other product does Anthropic really have besides?
parent is saying we cannot know
And my point is while we cannot know, it's not hard to make an informed guess as to their motivations i.e. there's some fairly obvious motivations here, not sure what yours is?
It's hard to say what their motivation is.
Not that hard to say IMO, they basically see models becoming a commodity and see value in the applications on top of them. So if Alibaba Cloud is the best place to build applications on top of Qwen, why not give the model itself away?
For what is worth, I don't think Russia is on the same economic success path as China, so I don't think the argument there is remotely convincing. I am not saying it's the right argument, I am saying the argument might work on a large chunk of the population if their standard of living is better than it was in colonial times.
This is true, but of course ignores what happens historically when these societies open up more. They tend to get exploited.
Places like China, Vietnam etc. don't yet have institutions strong enough to withstand (Western) meddling. So they can either be stable and relatively prosperous, or (in their mind), poor and open.
If you go by example of India, China seems preferable.
The sad part is that in the West, instead of offering a good counterexample, we're increasingly 'inspired' i.e. Assange, Snowden, chat control etc. while lacking even the historical justification for doing so and having worse infrastructure.
Killing people is just a side effect
That budget and wealth transfer requires the US Dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. A lot of the killing has to do with ensuring it remains that way.
From what I know, the 'defense' industry has their production cleverly across all 50 states so that they're seen as one of the few sources of stable employment for most, sadly.
I think they do. Maybe not specifically how much will it last, but the average person does understand nothing they buy last literally 'forever' and they would certainly have discovered with movies, music etc. too.
With physical discs however, you gain the ability to cheaply back them up, lend them, sell them etc. and 'someone' will always have a working copy of whatever you might want.
Not so with digital only media.
Well, that's the publicly stated reason. Is that really enough? Maybe, but I am slightly suspicious something else was promised behind the scenes.
I am saying they could have not said anything about it being too dangerous etc. and just released Fable as a new model once the safeguards were in place and Mythos to trusted orgs as they did.
Instead they choose to hype for months about having a model that's simply 'too dangerous to release'.
In other words, why hype it beforehand instead of just quietly add the safeguards they ended up with anyways and release then?
Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest.
So what prevented them from putting in the sort of safeguards they ended up putting in without hyping it for months prior as being so good, it's too dangerous?
What part am I misrepresenting, Anthropic CEO explicitly states he's ok with military use as long as there's a human in the loop[1].
He states the Iran school strike 'doesn't even violate our red lines'.
Can you clarify what am I misrepresenting please?
He's the one who led the choice to refuse working with the gov for surveillance or defense
This is false and just Anthropic being good at PR. He's happy to let it be used for airstrikes on Iran for example, just wants to keep a human in the loop. So the AI will say 'I am extremely sure this building (a girl school) is a military base' and the human will say 'I am being asked to carry out more airstrikes and who am I to question AI' and will bomb a school with Amodei then washing his hands.
They blew it by pretending to take some sort of moral high ground while their model was being used in Iran to blow up schools. I say they get what they deserve. I would have a lot more respect for them if they banned Pentagon use of their models outright.
Something I am not seeing discussed is why the sudden reversal?
Could it be Antropic promised NSA direct access to everyone's queries or something? Maybe an opportunity for admin officials to get in early on their promised IPO?
I am not a conspiracy theorist but this admin especially doesn't relent for free.
If you want to run Qwen3.6 27B / 35B at its best, get a MacMini M4 with 64GB of RAM and put it in the basement - or at least a few meters from your desk.
Can confirm this works rather well, most things that integrate with LLMs, (agents, editors), support providing a remote (LAN) URL for Ollama, LM Studio etc.
But you do need a fast LAN connection, otherwise working with agents will be a pain.
Go does force you too, but it also supports _ as a bypass - because sometimes you do know better. Just not in this case.
Rust never promised it'll let programmers turn off their brain, that's what LLMs are for.
Depends on if Atlas Shrugged is your Bible or not.
I didn't (and don't) understand your point, but in an earlier post you made some claim about it being Anthropic - you can't steal from Anthropic.
I do believe that Anthropic complaining about their TOS being violated is rich and should be thrown into the dustbin considering that Anthropic violates other people's TOS when it suits their business.
I do also think them complaining about it is aimed purely at influencing lawmakers to ban open Chinese models and eliminate choice so that them and OpenAI are the only game in town.
As far as other models distilling using Claude, that's just consuming the output of a service in a particular way. Anthropic should be very careful about imposing restrictions of how you can use their model output if they want to maintain marketshare. Enterprises are not going to like that.
That leaves the TOS violation of maybe hitting the service too fast, using too many accounts etc. Except again Anthropic did exactly the same thing when scraping for training data.
Do you believe The Pirate Bay complaining about a competing site stealing 'their' torrents should be taken seriously?
That's how I look at this.
For these reasons, I don't think Anthropic has a legitimate argument here.
Also distilling simply means using the answers from one model to specific questions to steer another model to answer a category of questions in a similar manner using its own capabilities. So as far as extracting weights, it's not exactly that, it's maybe slightly biasing the model that's being distilled so that its weights might look somewhat closer to the model used for distillation, but it's far from extracting them exactly/directly.
ARM was founded in the EU
Yes, but it was span off from Acorn Computers, which had its own European OS, CPU, computer etc, but ARM was all that was left of what could have been a fully European Apple had it been given more support.
I think Americans like yourself greatly underestimate what advantages having a unified language, legal system etc. brings. It may seem to many Americans that the EU is unified but it's much less so than you'd expect.
Social programs have little to do with it. You can have both industry and social programs if you just choose not to start random wars of aggression in the US too, something for which you need $1.5T apparently.
China has both more industry and plenty of social programs as an example.
I think you misunderstood my point. Distillation is not stealing. It's not that
"Theft presupposes a legitimate possessory claim by the victim. If A’s possession of X is itself wrongful because A stole X from B, then when C takes X from A, C has not violated A’s rightful ownership of X—because A has none."
Anthropic has no standing in claiming that using its model output is 'stealing' because that would basically eviscerate their business model where they claim that enterprises can use its model output and still claim the generated code as their IP.
I'm not really sure why you say it isn't an attack or adversarial. One side is doing something the other side doesn't want. Seems to be pretty clearly adversarial.
This is Anthropic we're talking about here. A company that's infamous for adversarial scraping of copyrighted content. I generally don't accept their framing, especially when it's pretty clear what the end goal of that is.
I think it is a reasonable term to use in the context of adversarial AI development
Distillation is neither an 'attack', nor 'adversarial' in any reasonable sense.
Does that mean I am getting paid by the CIA or something
It at the very least means you're uncritically parroting the framing of a company that'd like nothing more than to successfully persuade lawmakers that something should be done about open Chinese models (eliminate choice), preferably so that Anthropic is close to anyone's only option.
The framing distillation 'attacks' is a propaganda psyop.