chair

1.3K posts

chair

chair

@tablefourthree

Katılım Kasım 2021
3.2K Takip Edilen179 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
@Miles_Brundage @kvallier It's only meritocracy if it comes from the tech right. Otherwise it's just sparkling ideology.
English
0
1
6
936
Bun
Bun@bunjavascript·
In the next version of Bun bun:ffi gets up to 3x faster
Bun tweet media
English
12
11
504
123.7K
chair retweetledi
Sebastian Mallaby
Sebastian Mallaby@scmallaby·
Great essay. But I don't agree with the framing that being anti-open source means you are ushering in an Anthropic monopoly. There will very likely be multiple proprietary labs. Google serves Gemini to more than 2 billion customers and Gemini 4 is cooking. OpenAI will either succeed or be refinanced through an acquisition by Microsoft or similar. China will crank out models, even if these become proprietary. So this "Anthropic monopoly" framing strikes me as a straw man.
Joe Weisenthal@TheStalwart

THE FOUR WORDS EVERYONE IN TECH NEEDS TO SAY I wrote a long post in the newsletter about the Open Letter, the big AI risks people like to talk about, and how the whole thing could've just been summarized as "Lina Khan was right"

English
3
5
30
14.1K
chair retweetledi
David Manheim
David Manheim@davidmanheim·
Yes, the companies selling shovels (Nvidia, the GPU clouds) are coordinating for open-source models. Why? Here's a thread on the economics of Open-Weight AI, with a bonus about why NVIDIA prefers not just open models, but capabilities acceleration. 🧵0/13 x.com/nvidia/status/…
NVIDIA@nvidia

AI security advances when the industry builds in the open, together. We're introducing the Open Secure AI Alliance with industry leaders to develop new techniques and tools to safeguard software and agents. By sharing models, tooling and research in the open, we can broaden the community of defenders. Learn more about the founding members’ contributions: nvda.ws/4pD8Fc5

English
1
2
8
1K
chair retweetledi
Flo Crivello
Flo Crivello@Altimor·
Funny how Anthropic saying "our product might kill everyone" is them talking their book but Nvidia saying "we should support open source models running on Nvidia GB200™ GPUs" is stunning and brave, actually
Jensen Huang@JensenHuang

For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter. AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country. Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty. The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models. images.nvidia.com/pdf/Open-Weigh…

English
13
10
94
7.7K
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
@DavidSacks and @pmarca *are* asking for Claude’s weights though. They don’t just want open models they specifically want PRC models to not be blocked because it means no more free distillation of Anthropic. And they don’t have the talent and don’t want to spend the money to fund an American company to do its own research and release their own models. And for what reason? So they can give you @cluely?
English
0
0
0
18
Jonathan Lima - complexity/acc
@tablefourthree but we’re not asking for Claude’s weights we’re asking the lobbying about open models to stop (and this is orthogonal to EULA violations regarding distillation)
English
0
0
1
38
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
@oofdere You don’t get Claude Code if you can’t pay the researchers that built it because China steals all their work so that @pmarca can give you @cluely
English
1
0
0
25
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
Yeah the idea sucks because the result is @cluely and @Copilot. This is why David Sacks and Marc Andreessen want China to keep stealing Claude so they can get the value of deep AI research without paying the costs. For what reason? So they can keep selling you AI slop. Think about where all the worse AI slop products are coming from? It’s the signers of the letter: @finkd, @a16z, @satyanadella, @DavidSacks, @pmarca
English
0
0
1
26
Alim
Alim@almmaasoglu·
This is pretty insane ngl. Sunday nuke
Alim tweet media
Noah Lebovic@NoahLebovic

I don't think it's a lack of imagination. I also used to work at Anthropic, think trends will continue, and used to agree with this. But I've changed my mind and now disagree with this take. Open models are already capable enough to do what you described. For example, I used Opus 4.6 to gain access to other folks medical records, hijack bank accounts, etc. back in February. GLM 5.1 is more capable than Opus 4.6 in most pentesting environments, and it came out in April. Despite capable open-weight models existing, the sketchier folks I know are still using a Claude Code or Codex subscription for hacking. (Even well-resourced groups in other countries! They use the grey/black market of discounted Ant/OAI subscription tokens sold through resellers.) So I see most of the materialized risk here as still coming from Anthropic and OpenAI; safeguards aren't sufficient to stop a moderately dedicated actor. The groups I know who are using open-weight models are legitimate offensive security companies. They won't break the rules to use subscription-based pricing, the open-weight models are more reliable in that they don't require specific jailbreaks nor hit classifiers, and the labs use massive partnerships or spend as a prereq for lowering classifiers/safeguards. I know of three legitimate groups running GLM 5.2 as their primary model. That last part applies for Anthropic, too: I know of two instances where two different Anthropic GTM people used large comitted spend contracts as a prereq for lowering safeguards, and I directly witnessed one. On the inside, I know the narrative and intent is genuinely about safety. But from the outside, Anthropic-the-system seems to be optimizing for revenue and control/power, isn't diffusing capabilities to defenders, and also doesn't have adequate safeguards to prevent misuse from dedicated bad actors. As a result, I now lean towards a future where capable open models are freely available (at least for cyber, bio is harder); I don't trust Anthropic or other frontier labs to handle this sufficiently well without diffused capabilties given what I've seen so far.

English
9
25
612
101.4K
chair retweetledi
Kosta Milovanovic
Kosta Milovanovic@ildunari·
The funny part is that unlike most other companies, they’ve been very consistent with their stance on most of these topics since the start. They’ve been anti China, they’ve had feuds with NVIDIA cuz of it even. They’ve been anti open source for the longest time, the reason being rogue or state actors getting access to future cyber weapons via LLMs. Very open about supporting the US and the military, given some restrictions they feel are sensible of course. It’s just that ppl forget and get glazed over when new things come out or freebies get released. We have such short attention spans, it’s actually wild. I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, and some of the points they make are logical. I’m just annoyed about the waves of outrage and love these companies get.
English
1
2
15
1.7K
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
Imagine if AI cos could use all the data of all the chats of all the enterprises locked away in Slack for training. Just petabytes of pure complex reasoning in written language across almost every domain imaginable Would probably leap us to economic AGI immediately
English
0
0
0
57
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
@dmarusic I’ve always said that the best way to motivate technical talent is via forced labor camps.
English
1
0
0
20
Damir Marusic
Damir Marusic@dmarusic·
I'm going to make a concrete prediction here. If AI proves to be as dangerous as the frontier lab insiders say it is, the labs will all be nationalized, with their best researchers moved to secure prisons to continue working on behalf of a very popular authoritarian regime.
Aleph@woke8yearold

I'm going to make a concrete prediction here. Open weights AI will prove to be genuinely dangerous and cause a bunch of disasters/be used for bad ends, which will vindicate everyone that warned about this possibility and discredit everyone else

English
3
0
12
1.6K
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
@sriramk @jaltma Yeah you just bet on crypto and missed the AI boat and now are whining to the government to destroy your competitors for you. How about compete on talent? What happened to meritocracy? Build a competing AI company instead of whining.
English
0
0
0
8
Sriram Krishnan
Sriram Krishnan@sriramk·
@jaltma I think people know exactly what each other believe - but hard to talk anyone off either belief.
English
5
1
34
2.3K
Jack Altman
Jack Altman@jaltma·
Part of what’s making the OSS AI debate so tricky is people are working off completely different goals and premises. If you believe in godlike RSI you’re thinking about who can be trusted with it. If you don’t you’re thinking about where should profits pool and what’s best economically. If you’re concerned with “fairness” you’re thinking about who should be allowed to “steal”/distill what, and who has done it in the past. If you’re thinking about geopolitics you’re thinking about US vs China and then trying to figure out what creates the most advantage. The net result is a lot of arguments with people talking past each other.
English
42
24
393
49.8K
chair
chair@tablefourthree·
@kimmonismus They’re scared of Anthropic and don’t have the talent to build a competing product. What happens to meritocracy?
English
0
0
0
26
David Sacks
David Sacks@DavidSacks·
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.
English
524
1.1K
11.3K
793.4K