This isn’t going me trying to be sarcastic, or hyperbolic, or whatever. I take things seriously and, naively, won’t read beyond what is written.

I think it should be fair enough to read this and “weigh” its meaning and intent:
https://www.anthropic.com/news/position-open-weights-models

Alright then. There are two groups, one asking for explicit bans, the other supporting open weights. Anthropic here saying they don’t belong to the first group, but as we’ll see in a moment, not quite to the second as well. I add a simple observation to this, but if you notice whoever ends up subscribing to one group or the other is ALMOST ALWAYS guessable (like 99% success of this heuristic) by looking at personal interests. OpenGPT asks for a ban, Nvidia, selling the hardware, wants it going on and on. It’s not like there’s any relevant analysis or logic, everyone is simply pulling toward the side that is more convenient. Not the one that is more correct, or complete. In “technical terms” they ALL come after the processes that drive them, not before. They are driven, they don’t drive this process.

The rest of this quote is irrelevant, but the thesis as well. Is this just pure and simple imperialism? An American dude worrying of losing supremacy? China is certainly worrying, but the primary, worldwide threat, RIGHT NOW, is US fascism and imperialism. China isn’t actively bombing anyone, right now, the US are.

“Authoritarian governments” are worrying whether it’s the CCP, or US, or whatever, whoever else. It’s this whole SHITHOLE to be worrying. Bombs land whether or not driven by AI. Claiming this authoritarian problem as it is somewhat dependent on AI misses the point by miles. Authoritarianism is a problem WELL BEFORE AI. And AI is a problem, right now, because it is ALREADY in US authoritarian hands. Not as a powerful tool, but as an economic-destroying tool. It is devouring human resources in a way that is unprecedented on this planet.

The bottom line of all this, what Amodei is saying, is that the race to supremacy is legitimate. Whoever is at the top subjugates everyone else. Therefore, it’s better if it’s “us”, rather than “them.” Both can be authoritarian and destructive, but if it’s us being destructive, at least we destroy them, more.

Or: the problem is not the killing as a moral ground. The problem is seizing the means to kill, so that we are killers rather than killed.

Lex Luthor dilemma once again, as anticipated.

“Powerful AI models may be misused,” so what? The only distinction here is not epistemic, as it should be, it’s pure, once again, ownership.

WHAT IS MISUSE of AI? Who applies “guardrails”, and to defend whose interests?

Amodei here has already sidestepped and deleted any pretense of general regulation, any idea of universal, collective policies to apply outside biases. There are no rules, only control.

Here he’s saying that he’s not against a ban of Chinese AIs, but merely because he thinks the practical means as ineffective. He WANTS to ban Chinese AI, but in a way that actually works. The goal is the same, the debate is: how can US industry + US government continue to impose their own fascist control on the world? How can they stay on top?

The reason why this is all factual description is that he doesn’t acknowledge anywhere that the “misuse” can be THEIR OWN. They are FULLY RACIST in their own views (or in this case it’s less about racism and more as universally nationalist, but it amounts to the exact same thing). Whatever they do is right, whatever “the other party” does is dangerous and threatening.

(We’ll see below he’s for regulation, but it’s regulation of the public-facing offer, not internal development. So there are two halves, the risk posed by models available to everyone, where he wants to put “safeguards”, and the internal ones. In this case, since regulation is not as easy, he merely wants to seize power and be on top. Self-righteous dominance. Which is what I’m commenting, to be precise.)

US businesses are “legitimate.” Non-US businesses are illegitimate, or they decide if they are. They set safeguards, for you. Not for themselves, as they are the law, they have already ascribed to themselves the superior morality. They do not simply act as Kings of the whole world, they theorize their supremacy.

I have no idea about Amodei, the man behind the name. Haven’t done any research, or read interviews to gleam what kind of man he might be. I have no previous bias. But this is, if very slightly masked, the exact same white nationalist fascist supremacy that Elon Musk ascribes too. Slight different language, but exact same meaning.

If it was even in doubt if Amodei was in support of fair competition: he’s clearly not.

He’s saying: let them compete without the hardware to do the work. They likely will be able to do something, but starting with a significant disadvantage means we’ll always be far ahead.

This too was anticipated: AI companies cannot control USE of AI, so they are trying to close down ACCESS. They aren’t trying to use this tactics against China, but also against ALL other competitors. They are trying to seize the process UPSTREAM: control hardware producers, and through corruption, government contracts and sheer power, lock in those hardware producers to themselves, so that no one else can interfere.

This is pure delirium as it is both factually incorrect, and also going nowhere. If just above he complained that some policies aren’t wrong, in his mind, but don’t work in practice, here he propose exactly the same: something vague and with no practical application.

Even assuming that the initial statement is correct, and is not, what are these policies that “deter this behavior”? How?

A reminder that “distillation” is equal to the process that allowed these AI businesses to exist in the first place. They all started by stealing, now demand policies so that stealing stays as their own personal privilege.

Yeah, not much to add here because this is the only reasonable point.

But WHY it is the only reasonable point, compared to all the others? Because this is the only one where the problem is seen from an epistemic point of view that applies outside interests and biases. Everything else he wrote amounts to: how can we have universal policies where Anthropic makes all rules? Here we move to: how can we have universal rules that apply uniformly to everyone, INCLUDING ANTHROPIC?

Why all other points are intended to favor Anthropic, while damaging or hindering competitors, and only one is intended to operate outside bias? How can you think that is proposal is acceptable for anyone that isn’t you?

And please tell, how do you guarantee that these tests are enforced? How do you make sure that what’s hidden is not? Because it’s all self-defeating: if this regulates the public space, so the AI offered AS A SERVICE, it still does nothing for AI that is internally developed and used.

And here comes a well known pattern, now defined as “end times fascism”:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/13/end-times-fascism-far-right-trump-musk

The problem of this (fascist) rhetoric, depicting a chilling scenario, is that it would like to be all about AI, but in the actual reality the leverage of this danger given by AI is quite minimal.

You could make maybe a case about “weaponize pandemic-level viruses with widely available materials,” through help of AI, but this is really a minuscule risk in front of a giant one that is ignored.

There are ALREADY giant capabilities of doing damage on an unprecedented scale, through viruses. This is nothing new, and we’ve been here a while. Only reason this hasn’t happened is that, as Covid has shown, no one has any control. While viruses can do more damage and slip out of control compared to atomic bombs, it’s not like, as humanity, we face these types of large scale threats for the first time.

AI moves close to nothing. It’s still the same stupid human beings, with too much power. It’s already a risk. It has always been a risk.

Amodei here just wants to be the man with his finger on the button. Because he thinks he knows better. Because he thinks he is the responsible king no one has elected. Because he happens to be rich and influential.

Who watches the watchmen? The Devil.

Hand them off, then.

You are the owner of authoritarian hands, working for an authoritarian, fascist government.

And if distillation was stopped, your business wouldn’t exist.

As previously seen, if STEP 1 was evoking of good old RED SCARE, STEP 2 is all about remembering they already infiltrated the government, so it’s time to precisely use the law for its purpose: protect the thieves.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/21/us-threatens-sanctions-against-chinese-ai-models-over-ip-theft/

AI companies that exist solely because they stole everything they could lay their collective (but oligarchic) hands on, that illegally appropriated the whole breadth of open source domain, tightly licensed if any government existed to have these rules respected, rather than taking bribes precisely to avert their eyes and pretend not to know. So they appropriate what has been built and exists to be public, to make it all their own. Then CRY and demand governments to defend their bogus IPs from Chinese competitors. Not the American ones, who do the exact same thing, since they are all in the same scam and they all collaborate to their petty crimes. Nope, it’s the Chinese specifically who are the enemies since they oppose their fascist nationalism.

So, how is it?

Steal from open source to build AI, absolutely fine. Even if you’ve just made a crime to steal from EVERYONE and appropriate what is public. You profit from this, everyone else is damaged.

Then you copy this rebranded IP, to deliver back to the community, and this is very, very bad. Against the rules. You are hurting single entities in order to serve the whole community. BAD. COMMUNIST BADNESS.

America: we protect the abusers, we are the abusers. Our rule of law is the abuse.

How they love their laws when they can be exploited for personal interest, and how they immediately vanish when it comes to preserve and further their crimes.

To be fascist is the American state, and to call it so is mere accurate description, not hyperbole or projection.

Of course it doesn’t matter whether or not these accusations are even plausible:

It’s only ironical that the following unrelated news was a fuckup of OpenAI, that eventually was fixed through Chinese technology, because the American tools were unreliable:

At least this prelude to the apocalypse is quite funny.

Kimi K3 comes public, a new AI model that seems performing quite well, in a way that is at least somewhat comparable to the most advanced “frontier” models available right now.

This is relevant for a couple of reason: it’s Chinese, and it’s open source.

Open source here means a few different things, but mainly you can use it locally in some capacity.

You should see how this is a significant threat to US hyperscalers, because everything they are spending money on might as well be close to worthless.

This being the overall main discourse between those who are AI-savvy and trying to figure out “what happens next.”

The bulk of these conclusions is roughly this: the difference between “frontier” AI models and everything else is quite minimal, especially in practice. It means that for a daily common use the difference between having access to the best AI resources and the average ones is negligible. There’s almost no difference in practice.

But the real threat is that this higher performance gap also gets closed within 3 months, or less. AI models get better, but all AI models get better. Those who spend the most, whether OpenAI, Anthropic, Google or whatever, spend INSANE amount of money for a minuscule advantage. An advantage that gets smaller and more negligible over time. Something with immense costs, to produce an advantage, that vanishes immediately after.

We all know already “the bubble is gonna pop” (and it should have popped already, if it wasn’t for fascist government protection). But the point here is how badly, because these big US companies have literally nothing to sell.

At a basic level AI was a trojan horse that stole the breadth of human knowledge, siphoning it out of public hands and handing it to private companies. They stole everything so that they could “launder” it through AI mastication, and sell it again as their own. So, banally, if your company produces and sells software, you feel the lure of AI, to accelerate that production. Only to realize that you are handing out your own competence, BACK to the AI private company. The AI company appropriates your work, and at that point two things happen. Either your software company shuts down, or is bought. In the meantime “layoffs”, all around the world, in order to support that “capex” (the expenses, the crazy amount of money needed to build data centers). Large capitals that move from people’s salaries, to hardware (mainly).

Why these AI companies spend so much money, money they do not have? Why taking these risks? Because it’s merely a giant ongoing robbery & looting, “take everything you can, as fast as possible”. What AI is doing, in the eyes of these (few, very large) private companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, is to CENTRALIZE knowledge. The more they sell AI services to other, external companies, the more they send trojan horses out to these companies, to steal their knowledge and shut them down. They progressively APPROPRIATE everything there is. The classic capitalist model of starving large majorities of people so that a few rich get richer. The widening of the gap. They started by stealing books, art, code from every corner of the internet, and so erasing the concept of licenses, since no one in politics cared to stop them. And now they use AI as trojan horses to appropriate production everywhere around the world.

The crack in this system is that it would all work only if then these AI companies could protect the giant hoard they accumulated. What the public Chinese models show is that THEY CANNOT. Because AI was built by stealing, now stealing is the norm. So what prevents another AI company to “steal” from you? (it doesn’t work technically like this, but it amounts to it)

If the genesis of AI has been stealing everything there is, as fast as possible, the unintended consequence is that now these AI companies can’t build any wall, any moat, in order to defend their hoard. The giant tank of knowledge they built, by stealing, is leaking everywhere not so much as a flaw, but as an embedded structural feature. They are now realizing they can’t keep anything in, and that they have NOTHING LEFT(*).

(*) They have the hardware in the data centers, that as Cory Doctorow has said so many times, are fleeting too. Because technology supposedly moves so fast that by the time a new data center is complete, it is also OBSOLETE and needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Why do you think TECHNOLOGY is stalling? Why do you think no new GPUs are out? Why do you think the hyperscalers are trying to block access to hardware components like SSDs and RAM? Because of scarcity? Nope, because they are trying to lock in the hardware, since they couldn’t lock in the software. They are trying to merge the hardware companies, lock them to themselves in a co-dependent way, so that they can control the process. They are trying to build their moat by significantly reducing ACCESS, since they cannot control the USE of AI.

If the model is public, if you can run it locally and it works well enough to cover 98% of practical uses without any perceivable difference… What have these big AI companies to sell you, after they invested TRILLIONS of dollars?

If you were precisely in that position, how would you feel other than being scared and shitting your pants?

I introduce you to Dean W. Ball, head of “strategic futures” at OpenAI.

https://xcancel.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412

He starts by being direct-honest. Why should he? Because of what I already described. These models are public, therefore there’s no PR gaslighting to be done. Whoever is within this discussion has easily the means to verify these claims, so there’s no room to try and deny the obvious. Doing so you’d lose your leverage because everyone would know you’re lying.

So yeah, these two should be both truths: it’s a “very good model”, and it is “token hungry.”

When he says “it seems on par with the best public models”, he saying including those his own company sells. Notice the specifics, emphasis on Q1 2026. Models seem to evolve quickly, so maybe now he has a better product to sell next, to be a step ahead… See what I already described above. That advantage is eroding quickly.

Why, oh why, China is allowing this?

It does make sense, for a centralized type of government/dictatorship that existed by enforcing censorship everywhere, obsessed with control… why would they allow the “open sourcing of models this good,” why wouldn’t they try to keep a tight control, top-down. It all makes sense just as long you have a comic-book, cartoon-parodistic view of China government. Of course the real world is more complex than this. (not to glaze Chinese government)

(I’m not going to comment in detail on the sprinkled rhetorical-fascist propaganda jargon, merely pointing at “AGI-pilledness”, “decelerations/accelerationists”, this individual seems to be rather deep fried by political propaganda. But in this case you could even say that these “descriptions” still work well enough in practice to signify directly.)

“all this money we’re investing, we are investing FOR YOU!!!”

Cry more tears. He’s complaining that what the Chinese model is doing compromises his own business. Does not like competition. The trick here is by twisting “capex” as a contextual term, outside the level of the single business. ALL capex is reduced, so all investments on AI are reduced = bad.

He’s thinking he’s the center of the world, just like all AI psychopaths. Once you bank all your life and futures on AI, you’re living in hell and permanently committed to its demonic(*) deliverance.

(*) I’m not using “demonic” here as a moral pejorative. AI is demonic IN THEIR OWN accurate views. The part I omitted from the quote implies he sees AI as much more than what’s available today, and believes in true general AGI. In that pure, precise sense of something other than human with metaphysical connotations. It’s literally demonic in the way it exists outside the plane of current knowledge. These techno-fascists see themselves as literal sorcerers to access a new plane of reality.

Here comes A CLASSIC. THE RED SCARE. Communism fearmongering.

Oh my! Full AI communism. Dystopian hellscape. AI needs to be exclusive to the hands of sociopathic fascist billionaires, because if instead you make it public there are SECURITY RISKS.

Security risks that VANISH just as long this powerful and dangerous technology is reserved to the private hands of none other than LEX LUTHOR.

You cannot trust governments! You cannot trust the people! YOU CAN TRUST LEX LUTHOR!

Who will certainly always do what’s in YOUR, public interest. Not his!

Security risks! Dystopian hellscape!

Only the billionaires can save you! Trust them, not China!

And here comes the lobbying through oblique language. (You might not know, but this dude was a Trump official just before quitting and going to work for OpenAI. As these people are moved back and forth to lobby public governments into doing their own private interests.)

“I would guess”, because I’m humble. Reads instead as: I would pressure the Trump Administration to realize that OUR best strategy is to CREATE (not analyze, not detect, but create out of thin air) large amounts of regulatory risks. In order to stifle the competition when it comes to sell OUR services to OUR US companies.

Because without doing this there would be fastidious capitalist competition in the free market, and our clients might as well be choosing to buy the Chinese services rather than ours.

We can’t have that in this free market system, right? Here comes tariffs, blocks, bans, open market manipulation, lobbying, corruption and everything else that we’ve seen happening under the sun, shamelessly, in the last couple of years.

China offers a competitive product that disrupts the US interests? Block them. We’re libertarian = we’re selfish egomaniacs. Rules only apply to others, not ourselves. There are no morals other than winning advantages at all costs.

And we conclude with the icing on the cake of the baseless fearmongering (remember? “it needn’t be well justified”).

Open-weight models make the world a bit more dangerous. But you won’t notice, until you have a nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a lab.

(and notice how he uses a debunked Covid conspiracy theory to bank on his fascists fans sympathies, who love these types of alt histories)

Just remember a basic truth: when fascists detail apocalyptic scenarios, it’s because it’s what they are planning to enact.

Corruption is the state.

You should be aware that this is just the beginning, and doesn’t end (won’t end) with Trump.