Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Booo! "authoritarian hands". Scary
Its not like current US regime is using AI for: 1) Mass military operations across the globe 2) Mass surveilance of its citizens 3) Removing every possible safety guard from AI/climate regulation 4) Stealing data across the world to train its own closed-source models 5) Is openly antidemocratic, destabilizing EU and economy of whole world
I wonder why company which is actively cooperating with the current regime would push such message
by yamal4321 - I realized the other day that Anthropic will end up getting the reputation Facebook has today.by ramshorst
- US is using as much fossil fuel as possible for this AI build out. China is leading the world in an unprecedented green transition, so their AI usage is overwhelmingly going to come from solar, wind, and nuclear.by Schlagbohrer
- What Dario misses time and time again, is that people don't trust the US to create aligned AI anymore. His entire strategy rests on the assumption that the US (and their government) are exceptional.
This is clearly false to the rest of the world.
by soundworlds - then we will make them trust usby abacadaba
- He did not miss, it’s deliberate choiceby teacpde
- Another reading is that the US is exceptional not because of any qualitative measure. It is the exception to all other countries, by definition, because it is the country where Anthropic is HQd.
China ends up being “bad” not based on objectively looking at evidence and data, but because it is simply not the US.
Business nationalism, basically.
by gorgoiler - I mean in the Bloomberg interview he has made it very explicit that he fully believes in American Exceptionalism. He literally said AI being involved in bombing school girls in other countries are ok because he trusts the American military leadership.
According to him the safety and morality rule of the whole world should be written by America alone.
Which is why in the same interview he said he supports the U.S. foreign policy while calling China "an aggressive and war mongering regime".
>This is clearly false to the rest of the world.
It's clearly false to more and more Americans too. But since the oligarch class benefits first and foremost from U.S. government policies the propaganda will continue to go on.
by Cookingboy - Every single risk he identifies as a concern regarding China is exactly my concerns with the US having absolute control. Literally the exact same concernsby Aboutplants
- Except it's 1,000x worse with the American models, because Trump might just decide that everyone in Europe get their access cut off, or gets a 5,000% tarriff. Or the companies just all agree to hike prices 10x one day. With open Chinese models, we can, in principle, run them ourselves.by CJefferson
- same concerns? why? china is not a warmongering nation like the usa. 80% of people in their 30's own their own house. an ambulance doesn't cost an arm. etc
dǎdǎo imperialism, wànsuì the people's revolution!
by gverrilla - Absolutely agree. It wasn't Chinese open weight models that supported an attack on Venezuela because a Yankee pedophile didn't get the Nobel prize he wanted.by Laurel1234
- It was the same thing with TikTok, wasn't it?
It's bad for TikTok to be controlled by a Chinese company because Americans access it. The solution is to make it US-controlled. The rest of the world? Who cares.
by AlienRobot - They're Americans trying to appeal to other Americans. Of course everything they do is justified and everything everyone else does is an evil scheme to plot the ruin of American freedoms. How else are you going to convince the dementia patients in charge of the country?
If China, India, the EU, and everyone else has any sense, they should take this letter to heart as much as Anthropic wants the American government to.
by jeroenhd - Yeah. Exact same concerns here as a non-american. Their "national security" is a constant threat to the rest of us.
- It's projection. These tech CEOs know what they are doing and it scares them that someone else might do the same.by Gigachad
- Oh no! The evil CCP is a huge threat to world peace and goodness! Give all your money and input token data to Palantir to support a rules based world order where the good guys thrive and cleanse the earth from crooked turtle biologists.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/mona-khalil-tu...
- Like half of the world are now struggling with energy prices due to an unprovoked war started by U.S. and Israel and somehow an American billionaire is here criticizing China of being a threat to world peace.
It's kinda gross.
by Cookingboy - So the argument is basically: This technology is too dangerous so only _we_ should have access to it. We’re the good guys and only we can ensure a safe use of this technology.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
by mjorgers - Not to mention it's simply farcical America of all places would be considered responsible. You could not name another country on earth who could wreak more damage (although thank god this is waning by the day with Trump destroying the empire in charge)
- There's more to it than just safety: in Dario's psychopathic mind, obtaining advanced AI will lead to massive military advantage, hence "we" must do it first to prevent "them" attacking "us". See where it's going? Suppose it happened, then what? By Dario's logic there are two possible continuations: 1. start a war by attacking first and 2. do nothing and waste the entire effort because "they" will obtain the same capability a bit later.
- Yeah, which is ironic considering their track record too. The most recent one is every shared Claude chat has been indexed by Google and is searchable on the search results. Then there was the RCE in their CLI that they had for a year and was silently patched without any sort of disclosure.by nullbio
- > To summarize my and Anthropic’s position, we have not and are not advocating for a ban on open-weights models as a category. We should instead focus on keeping powerful chips out of authoritarian hands, stopping industrial-scale distillation, and requiring safety testing of all sufficiently capable models, open and closed.by Nevermark
- “I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a world where someone makes the world a better place better than we do” - Gavin Belsonby dools
- That is in fact Anthropic's entire reason for existence, the belief that AGI is too dangerous to be controlled by OpenAI/Sam Altman. It naturally follows that it would also be too dangerous to be in the hands of literally everyone on earth.by MrCheeze
- To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of open models -- what should be done about open weight bioweapon and cyber-offense capabilities? Is it simply the cost of freedom that we should allow attackers to access these tools? The OpenAI / Hugging Face incident shows what a GPT 5.6 level model can do off the leash; within ~6 months, open weight models will match this and every bad actor under the sun will be able to pull off attacks at this scale. Do you seriously want this level of capabilities to be generally available with no guardrails?
The open weight issue has a lot of difficult nuance. Biasing toward supporting openness makes sense and is a good instinct, but it's incredibly naive to be absolutely in favor of it in every circumstance without seriously thinking about its implications.
by ajyoon - the bioweapon panic is funny. "oh, yes i know nothing about bicrobiology but i will follow instructions of synthetic text generation machine on temperature 1 about how to design a lab to not kill myself while brewing organisms that will kill myself if i make mistake"
There is nothing that special about bioweapons, there are plenty of bacteria that will kill you just fine. Americans even have free samples on their salad.
by tacet - This Pandora box is already open. Any argument about guardrails now are only attempts to create an artificial monopoly or keep this power in the hand of a single nation state, and _that_ is the absolute worst, most authoritarian future possible.by manoDev
- If this is really the risk, then we should approach LLMs like atomic bombs: the US should reach out to other nations so they all agree on no one developing any more AI models. That's the only way you could possibly convince another party to stop. The US should set the example, not conveniently keep all the spoils.by rubslopes
- > To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of open models -- what should be done about open weight bioweapon and cyber-offense capabilities?
Nothing should be done. These things are trained on public knowledge. The dangerous information is already out there. If someone wants to do something horrible, making it slightly inconvenient isn't going to do much. Hackers and terrorists existed before AI. Just as an example, it's no secret how you would build a nuclear bomb. The practicalities of doing so are much harder, obviously, but the knowledge of how they work and what it would take to make one is not a secret. Security through obscurity has never worked!
by overgard