← Back to context

Comment by cedws

5 days ago

This makes me want to see China and open models succeed more than anything :)

They already have though, no? If we lost access to every model permanently besides Qwen tomorrow, would we really be limited by AI in what we could achieve in the future? Sure, it might be slower and take a little more work but it seems like the cat is already out of the bag.

In a few months they will have Fable level models costing 10 times less and with less safeguards.

  • I do agree, I still remember when opus 4.7 was released and one prompt conversation would empty my claude usage but I can use all it day long to code

Do you know that some open models developed in China are financially supported by Meta ?

Do you want anyone in the world to be able to synthesize dangerous viruses?

  • I want everyone in the world to be able to perform unlimited cutting edge research on any topic at the maximum thinking level, instantly.

    The reason we are not being attacked is not lack of technology access.

    • It is an access issue. If you could get step by step instructions on how to modify a virus so it kills all people over 6ft you bet your ass there would be people attempting it.

      10 replies →

  • It's inevitable. Also, it's not like I get to vet who does or doesn't have access. Blind trust in the current selection made by an unregulated corporation just makes me anxious.

    Security in the form of "pay to play" is just kicking the bigger issue down the road.

  • Do you believe people currently possessing best models act/will act in your best interest?

  • So, security (safety) through obscurity?

    • The phrase "security through obscurity" isn't an argument against all information restriction.

      It doesn't imply we should, for example, publish step-by-step instructions for making widespread death easier.

      1 reply →

    • The argument against security through obscurity isn't that it doesn't work at all. It does to a degree, only it is not as strong as people think.

      An example from the meat world: not publishing your vacation dates well in advance for the world to see somewhat reduces your chance of being burglarized. That is security by obscurity; not reliable, but not completely inefficient either.

      But if you live in a fortress (security by key material), you can well declare your vacation dates without running the risk.

  • It the tool was made available to anyone to build a virus, anyone would be able to build counter measures, if only a select few people have access they get to build the virus and everyone else is at a disadvantage. So, yes, I am leaning towards making these tools open rather than gated behind some priesthood and government that gets to wield exclusive power.

    • Compare the cost/ease of attacker vs defender if one person is given a virus to unleash anywhere in the world and another person is given a vaccine to distribute to the whole world. Or compare building a large bridge to someone disabling that bridge, etc. Prevention and repair is almost always more expensive than vandalism.

      I don't think there's an ideal solution here, but giving trusted people access to fix security issues before giving it to the wider public seems like a reasonable compromise. They're letting you use the model for all other uses.

  • you need a lot more than the nucleotide sequence to make a virus. you need the DNA or RNA to be synthesized, assembled, packaged properly. and long sequences are pretty hard to do. you need a lot of equipment, or you need to order from services. the oligo synth services can harden their KYC and/or screen for suspicious sequences.

    sure, a malevolent state actor could swing it, but they could make a bioweapon without Mythos's help already.

    also, vaccine production and disease surveillance have ramped up very quickly. they will ramp up further, despite political setbacks. it's a cat and mouse game that favors the defenders IMO.

    but the bioterrorism narrative is useful FUD to spin open-weight models as existentially dangerous. I am far more worried about Anthropic's own goals than the goals of some crackpot in a shed.

    • > it's a cat and mouse game that favors the defenders IMO

      How so? I'm actually against most of the "safety-tuning" that anthropic does, but this seems fundamentally untrue, a close analogue being video game cheat development. I think in general the cheat developer has an advantage and the cheats generally proliferate for quite a while before being patched.

      3 replies →