Remember when Microsoft said open source was dangerous?

Dangerous to profits. Please think of the shareholders!

Dangerous?

They said Linux and open source is fucking cancer

And I'm pretty much quoting here - emphasise on just pretty much

…and the Billionaires!

Do we really need CEOs?

When all along it was Mico$oft that was the cancer.

They’re clearly 2 wildly different things. This is more like a weapons manufacturer saying homemade explosives are dangerous.

Open source AI has the potential to be very dangerous.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

That's right, better make sure unaccountable corps of the turd reich are the only ones controlling this tech.

making CEOs at home is a very dangerous path

Everything has the potential to be very dangerous, your cleaning products in your home are potentially very dangerous... The only thing open source AI is a danger to is the owners of these AI companies who have pumped all their money into nvidias pockets and are now sad they won't be able to recoup that monumental loss of profit.

Explaining the harmfulness of monopoly & regulatory capture to an American:

Imagine at home there is no burger

Knives are very dangerous, hence they are only alllowed in industrial kitchens.

They should be regulated.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we need to protect the power of the AI companies. But what they’re saying is factually not wrong. AI has the potential to be dangerous. Significantly more than household cleaning products.

Knives and AI are equivalent.

IIRC those open source models are trained on the output of OpenAI and Anthropic's models anyway.

And the plagiarism machine owners complaining about others plagiarizing their plagiarism machine is still one of the funniest things to happen in all of this.

By whom?

Regulators

Do go on, from which country?

So is a glorified autocomplete and C4

Oh, my dear boy, all of them should be regulating it.

Their point is that it is no longer a “glorified autocomplete”. And that’s where you misunderstand the entire point.

I don't see the difference, you can easily burn down your whole house with the stove, the fire can spread through the neighborhood. Yet, just about everyone has a stove. Local AI will be the same after a decade or so.

You can literally kill everyone in the house by mixing two bottles of household cleaner. Like you're just completely ignoring the physical danger of house stoves and cleaning products, and only counting the theoretical data damage that could be done with AI. How are you gonna physically injure someone with AI from your house??

Their point is the damage you can do with AI will be significantly worse than burning a couple buildings down.

Not every kind of damage is physical.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

How is that actually pulled off? (train on the output of another AI? That would burn so many tokens through the "regular" ways, no?

Why do people even care about what a CEO says anyway? Fuck them. They only care about themselves and say shit that benefits them.

But it's really nothing more than a glorious auto correct. https://youtube.com/shorts/bsl46vGpMNU

well good luck with that kiddo, I'm sure it will be as effective as regulation of other types of open source

A human brain is a glorified auto correct.

Fact is, the AI that is dangerous is not giving advice about how to get to a car wash. It’s building hacks and scams etc. At a level and scale we’ve never seen before.

I think the lesson that should be taken from this is not that we need to prevent open source AI from coming out. We should recognize that Anthropic is in control of weapons that should be regulated by the government more heavily than it is. And society as a whole should be preparing for the “mythos” style AI to be open sourced. Which is inevitable from the sounds of it.

That's right, better make sure unaccountable corps of the turd reich are the only ones controlling this tech.

Who said anything about regulating open source?

the whole context of this thread Anthropic wants to ban open source models

Ok, but my reply was to your comment not the whole context of the thread.

Here's Anthropic claiming that Alibaba created 25k free accounts to crawl them: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims-alibaba-defied-trump-to-attack-claude-and-steal-capabilities/

when you definitely understand how context works

We've had hacks and scams before. AI is just another tool making it easier than before to do it. Doing criminal acts are already illegal. Both with and without the use of AI.

I'm not sure how it could even be regulated. In my view it's probably too late for any societal regulation. AI is open source and anyone can host it at home. I wouldn't mind some regulation for corporations though.

Yet to see a point yet that wasn't a nonspecific and unsupported declaration of fact

G-G-G-GHOSTS!!!!

Well, for future reference, be aware of your own comment if you want the context for the reply.

Yeah, Anthropic should be regulated. As well as all the others. They’re the ones building this mess.

Sorry for expecting a minimal level of awareness here.

Still the best civ game.

You should start by having it.

And?

A human brain is a glorified auto correct.

So then we should all be banned from using it and only megacorps can??

Which was extra rich because Bill Gates was pretty active on open source forums getting help developing his early programs that made MS into what it was, as well as using his school's computers, which weren't supposed to be used for commercial activity, then when he was trying to sell his shit, he was outraged at all the people willing to give their software away for free. He's a personification of the pulling the ladder up after him image.

And he maintains that stance to this day, with one of the goals of his foundation (which he started at the advice of his father wanting to look better after the embarrassment of the anti-trust case where he looked completely out of touch during his testimony and didn't take much comfort that the government pretty much just backed down after winning and didn't force MS to break up) being that someone profits from the medical advancements they support. It doesn't have to be him, but he is vehemently against the idea that anyone just share ideas for everyone's benefit rather than people making profits from it.

Okay and what are you gonna do? Geographically restrict an algorithm like they tried with encryption?