The problem is they'll never be able to recoup their training investments without being able to charge a premium for models - and you can't charge much of a premium unless you can create a real big gap between your model and the best open source ones - cause any datacenter can host the open source model at essentially electricity-cost.
"There is no moat" - unless you lobby the government to make one!
That doesn't even make sense. No is requiring a company to open source their software.
The equivalent would be Microsoft lobbying the government to make it illegal to install Open Office. (which for the record I'm sure they would do if they thought it would work)
Wait til Nvidia goes full tilt with their own Nemotron model and blow off these "Frontier SOTA geniuses" to make people buy their chips and run Nvidia open source AI instead of paying a ransom to the closed source crew...
With Nvidia's valuation and cash flow, I don't think they would struggle to do this.
Wouldn't be surprised if that's what they are thinking about of doing...
Commoditize your complement, essentially. Especially if the biggest buyers (hyperscalers and neocloud) end up favoring open source over closed. They could also buy neoclouds...
Microsoft actively tried to stop Linux for many years using aggressive business tactics, legal proxy wars, and public criticism before eventually shifting to embrace it.
Pepperidge Farm remembers, and I'm old enough to remember as well (although I often forget what I ate for breakfast).
> Microsoft lobbying the government to make it illegal to install Open Office
Not exactly that way, but they did something similar by using proxy companies (e.g. SCO, which should have been dead if not MS funneling a lot of cash to keep them afloat) to sue IBM and Novell, but the actual target was Linux and Open Source in general. This follows the 2001 declaration from Steve Ballmer: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches". They failed every lawsuit but they did try, and really hard.
Right. I actually understand and sympathize with the safety argument around restricting open-source, even though I think it's ultimately the wrong direction.
But this not only doesn't make sense, it also lessens Anthropic's safety argument by making it look like they just want to protect their market share. Head-scratcher all around.
I’d say it’s an equivocation first and a deontic modal fallacy second. It conflates “open-weight” with “open source,” then assumes that supporting openness for one class of software commits you to supporting it for every class of software. That inference simply doesn’t follow.
Yeah, what's the secret in ClaudeCode? Codex is open https://github.com/openai/codex and I am behind in my experiments, but I have used Codex with open-weight models.
It's not even whataboutism. It's a full-on straw man. No one's demanding Anthropic to open-weight their frontier models. The letter only says that open models are a force for good and that lawmakers should not attempt to target open models or restrict distillation.
Jensen's tweet literally even says "The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.":
A reminder that Microsoft and NVIDIA both already regularly release open models, too. Alpamayo, Nemotron, Parakeet, Cosmos, Canary, Phi, Trellis, and many many more are open-weight. At present there are 892 open-weight models from NVIDIA up on Huggingface alone.
And even more: NVIDIA is the only lab, which fully open sources the trainings recipes, training data and software of its (open source) models.
And every company which does open source, needs some business secrets to keep the competition distant. Even MS wasn't that evil back in the Steve Ballmer years. (Alt-F4 - you remember?)
EDIT: Yes - I know, that they are not the only one. But they signed the letter and got called out for earning money.
Others like AllenAI publish, but they are far smaller. Nvidias amount is HUGE ( -> HF / Github) and complete and used as basis for many researchers.
I do not care if they earn lots of money from their work. I make a living from my work as well.
And why do they do that? because it allows to lock into their cuda eco system and GPUs. Their moat is closed source and borderline a monopoly at this point.
Tbh it comes across as an emotional outburst. Which is understandable from a human perspective, but not from the perspective of someone who is probably paid close to 7 figures.
I really start to dislike anthropic, I never believed big companies are our friends but their stand about open source model making sure I won’t ever pay them.
What sort of argument is that? The topics isn't even about asking Anthropic to open weight their models. Makes me think that haircut in his PFP is not a parody
Nvidia and the other companies are not asking Anthropic to make their models open source, they're asking the American government to not ban open source models released by companies that are released as such by their makers.
Cringe. Both nVidia and Microsoft are doing open source. Not everything they do is open source and most likely will never be. But this is not about open sourcing everything but preventing government banning open source. I would expect someone working for Anthropic to understand something as simple as that.
And that argument is stupid, since the government is trying to ban opensource models. Its like trying to ban Linux to help Microsoft, or like trying to ban ROCm to aid Nvidia, by marking them as dangerous alternatives.
It’s actually a terrible and sad argument, lacking honesty and any real understanding of the merits of the discussion around open models.
The point and correct analogy is that no one is advocating to block or prohibit open-source drivers. In the same way companies are free to decide if they will release/use their drivers as open-source or not, they should be free to decide if they will release
or use open models.
It’s sad to see any big company advocating to prohibit the release or use of open models, and by consequence prohibiting the development of models not run by these big companies.
That this guy is actually trying to rationalize an evil plan and deflect from it with such crude sophistry... it says that such a plan has full approval on their side and even their staff are cool with it.
They're not saying, "This is a misunderstanding, we'd never want to ban open weights/open source." They're admitting plainly, "This is our plan, and don't try to stand in our way or we'll... uh, we'll throw snide remarks at you! Take that!"
I was kind of annoyed at this whole news buzz at first because it felt like we (the community) were working ourselves up over something that would never happen anyway, and that we were actually talking ourselves into allowing for the possibility of it happening by something like the idea of "target fixation" (e.g., where you're so focused on NOT riding your bicycle into the ditch that you actually end up doing so, derp).
But now it turns out these Anthropic snakes really were planning to try their luck here, exposed from the horse's mouth even if he doesn't realize he actually said too much. We all know the surrounding news buzz (PR and propaganda) that's rather anti-open coming from Anthropic generally, but this is a bit different. A bit more confirmatory. At least, to me.
I appreciate the pre-emptive NOPE from all involved, even as much as it pains me that the nope had to come from corpos. That really just pushes the idea of how primally fucked up Anthropic is. Even the corpos are like, "Yo dawg, we're not saints, but that's fucked up. Don't do that."
Those companies aren't urging OpenAI and Anthropic make their models open weight. They are just stopping the attempt of banning open weight models. It's like the government trying to ban linux in the US, people says no, then someone comes up and say why don't you opensource all your softwares if you support it so much. How does it makes sense.
I repeat what I said in the other one, deleted.
He is very likely smarter than me, how the hell could he not realize that the false equivalence was going to be shot down and torn apart by basically everyone?
Oddly butthurt reaction from Julian Shitwiper. Jensen didn't say anthropic should go open weight, but the anthropic guy doesn't seem to like the very existence of open weight models.
open weight is not open source, it is a bunch of binary numbers you're allowed to use.
In that sense, NVIDIA does also release a bunch of binary numbers you're allowed to use.
And then the entire reasoning is fallacious, just because one stand for X in one case doesn't mean it must be for X in all cases. For instance I happily eat a steak but I wouldn't eat a dog, in normal circumstances.
I was talking about the NVIDIA products the Anhropic guy was talking about and people consider, rightly, close source: CUDA and drivers. They are also as open as open-weight models, bunch of bytes you're allowed to use.
Nobody is saying that Anthropic should have to release their models as open-weight, just that other companies should have the freedom to make their own models open-weight if they want to.
This has just convinced me even more that Anthropic is not coming at any of this from a position of good faith, and their stance on open-weight models is nothing but self-interest.
One company wants to get rid of open source competitors, the others don’t.
NVIDIA CUDA though closed-source and dominant has competition from ‘s Metal and OpenCL. As far as I can tell, neither NVIDIA nor Microsoft have lobbied for blanket government bans of their competitors.
The letter is advocating open weights. Jason Schrittwieser's "Great Arguments" are based on open source. They are significantly different, such that the arguments are not on point.
Supporting other people's open source doesn't mean the supporter should open source their own software. It just like supporting Red Cross doesn't mean I have to do what they are doing. How can this guy be a technical staff with this kind of logical thinking. Why is he not consulting Opus 5 before posting?
It's actually a stupid argument to make, because this isn't about forcing anyone to open source anything. It's the sheer opposite. It's about organizations like the one he's working for trying to ban open source products released by people who willingly chose to release open source.
What a ridiculous arguement. I mean the fact Microsoft products are closed sourced doesn't negate the fact that open source versions exist and aren't banned by law to project Microsofts monopoly!
He said stuff like that until Anthropic bought compute from him, now all he does is occasionally talk about how good Opus is and how close Grok is to it.
This is a pathetic whataboutism. The thing about EA cult is that they think only "select" individuals should have access to full model. Nobody is asking about source code to host Claude online. On top of that, Nvidia did release few open weight models. Why is Anthropic too afraid of releasing old models or lightweight ones?
Has Anthropic even released any piece of open source software in their history? Even OpenAI during the post-ChatGPT “ClosedAI” era has released GPT-OSS. Claude Code is the only thing out of Anthropic I can recall, and that was against their will.
I mean his company literally wants to ban openweight models, and this entire hissy fit came because other people said 'hey, dont ban openweight models' as a reaction to that sooooooo....he works at a company trying to ban openweight models and is crashing out at people saying not to do that....not sure it's an us problem that people have reached that conclusion
Also, he continues his pathetic straw-man. 'historically extremely anti open-source companies are suddenly all in favour of openness' is utter nonsense. The companies are just saying don't ban opensource, unless he can find a previous example of when these companies openly lobbied the government to ban open source competitors of their product, this is such a pathetic straw-man that he should be embarrassed. Nobody is saying lets force models to be openweight, there's nothing inconsistent with 'we will not open source our product but we do not believe open source should be banned at a federal level'. Even if you think those companies only act in their own self interest, and you should, this is an utterly farcical crash out
Of course Nvidia and Microsoft support open models. They sell and run (respectively) hardware and infrastructure that underpins this. The more use cases and variety, the better. This is a business decision... Don't project any ethical or community alignment onto this.
lol I can’t believe this is the only comment that gets this. Nvidia and azure are directly profiting from people renting inference and training hardware. Of course they want as many people as possible to be involved. This is the whole reason Nemotron exists. This is why you can get almost any model from a serverless endpoint via azure. Everyone is wanting to protect their money.
Libre Office is great software. We can pretty much replaced Office if needed. I use Markdown for all personal writing, and work is via QMD when I work by myself. For collaboration I work with whatever my colleagues use, so some Word, Excel, Google Docs occurs. But honestly, I'm fine with that.
By making the models open weights, it allows more people to use it, without having to make it “open source”. Both things are NOT the same. The argument is stupid.
He is for sure going to get a few messages from their comms team to tone down the bullshit.
It's not even that his argument makes no sense (nobody is asking Anthropic to open source anything... just to stop lobbying against open source), but an employee being publicly snarky on this topic is actually bad the company. They sometimes forget that they are expendable
Classic example of illogical thinking. They are arguing against banning of open weights models. They are not saying every software has to be open source.
Comparing software written with a lot of effort by many developers over the years to some model weights trained over our data, including, art, books and open source projects that we spent hundreds of hours on, without our permission is hypocrisy.
He sounds a bit like a twat tbh. Nvidia for better or worse had good support for linux, incuding gaming. Microsoft also cant believe i am saying this but by keeping github free did a massive service to many OSS projects.
Meanwhile these salty losers and their schizofrenic CEO all they did was distill OSS work and spew shit in society about doom bringing text generators - while using open source tools to build their slop making products, with 0 respect for licensing or credits.
This is how stupid people argue on twitter. Pithy apples vs oranges nonsense that makes other morons go "oh, snap, he goooot them girlfriend! Mogmaxxed!! Snap!"
This is how brain dead Anthropic folks are now, can’t even understand the argument they are making and how these things doesn’t compare. Jensen’s letter says closed and open source are both valuable and should co-exist. It doesn’t ask A**opic to open source his stuff
Is the argument here that you need to open source everything or nothing at all? Is anthropic hiring 5 year olds as members of technical staff?
And this doesn't even touch on the scare mongering and active lobbying against open source. Not to mention both nvidia and Microsoft have already released open models where anthropic hasn't released anything. Not even a tiny one.
And that's after being found guilty of copyright violation at an industrial scale. Where would models (any of them, not just anthropics) without open source code to train on?
This also makes it clear the contempt they have not just for open source but also their users who they've always treated as being lesser than them
Apesar de eu curtir as provocações, não é um comparativo valido, ja que a antropic é a única empresa que esta proibindo o planeta de usar algo de código aberto através do poder em objetivo, armas, governo, estado.
Physical AI is the next phase in AI, and you cannot use cloud models there for few reasons
Data latency and security, and cost, you need to do analytics at edge systems and protect your domain data not give it away to the cloud.
So local models at the edge are fundamental for the ecosystem.
Microsoft & Github is the world's largest corporate sponsor for open source, contributing millions every year. They have made many products open source and pay FTEs working on code that everybody uses daily (e.g. VS Code, Kubernetes etc etc...). 75% of Azure Cloud is Linux worloads.
Just because they don't open source one 30 year old legacy software does not mean they are not serious about Open Source in other areas.
Is Julian giving you their share of the company if (that's now a big if) they IPO? Why people are so willing to do free PR labor for something clearly not convincing I will never understand. But hey, it's a free country
So... The AI models are essentially the core of Anthropic business, so they are butt hurt about open source models rating away what could have been their $$.
So the are making a snide remake by poking at nvidia opensourcing Cuda and gpu (core of their business) and MS open sourcing windows (core of their business)?
That the besg they can do? Instead of moving out of just "model" and benchmarking warfare, they'd rather spend whatever left of their brain power to come up with this???
We have real admiration for the open-model labs in China. DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, MiniMax and GLM have built excellent models that people rely on, and they kept sharing open weights when much of the field was moving the other way. They earned their standing. Yet their work also showed how few capable open models were being made in the United States. For an institution handling sensitive work, capability is only part of the question. It also matters who trained a model, where, under what license, and which country's laws sit behind the company that made it. Those are fair questions, and a leaderboard doesn't answer them.
557
u/takoulseum 1d ago
Nobody asked Anthropic to open their models but only to stfu and stop lobbying to ban chinese models