关于 AI 开发的公开信
英文标题:Open letters about AI development
过去数周,多封围绕 AI 开发路径的公开信集中表达了行业对开放权重模型、模型蒸馏与前沿 AI 发展速度的不同立场。由 Microsoft 推动、235 家 AI 相关机构签署的公开信主张开放权重模型有助于审查风险、提升竞争并避免关键能力过度集中,同时明确支持模型蒸馏。Anthropic 未参与签署,并警告威权政府获得更强 AI、网络与生物攻击滥用等风险,呼吁打击工业规模蒸馏活动。另一封由 1,324 名前沿 AI 公司员工签署的公开信则要求美国政府推动国际合作,以技术与治理工具审慎控制自动化 AI 研发带来的加速发展。
中文
关于 AI 开发的公开信
我原本将这篇关于过去几周公开信的总结,作为仅面向赞助者的新闻通讯中的一个章节撰写,但后来决定也在这里分享。
**开放权重与美国 AI 领导力**由 Microsoft 推动,日期为 7 月 24 日,并获得 235 家 AI 相关公司签署,其中包括 NVIDIA、Amazon、Y Combinator、The Linux Foundation,以及后续签署的 OpenAI。
这显然是一项旨在反驳美国现政府可能因“安全”担忧而禁止或限制开放权重模型的任何倾向的论述——鉴于Claude Fable 5 的遭遇,这确实是一个合理的考量!
仅仅依赖闭源模型并不天然安全:它们可能遭到攻破、被滥用,或以外部人员无法察觉的方式发生失效。将先进 AI 能力集中在少数闭源模型背后,会进一步加剧这一风险。这会形成少量单点故障,削弱竞争,并将关键技术交由少数供应商掌控。相比之下,开放权重模型允许广泛的研究人员和开发者社区审查其行为、识别漏洞、开发防护措施,并随着时间推移持续改进它们。
这封信中一个令人意外的观点,是它明确支持蒸馏,即模型利用其他模型的输出进行训练:
在塑造这一生态系统时,政策制定者应谨慎,不要将正当的模型开发技术与不当挪用混为一谈。蒸馏,即利用一个模型的输出帮助训练或改进另一个模型的做法,是一种被广泛用于模型改进、评估和验证的技术。它延续了从既有技术中学习、在其基础上构建并加以改进的悠久传统;自开源软件运动兴起以来,这一传统一直在推动创新。
值得注意的是,签署名单中没有 Anthropic。三天后,该公司发布了自己的回应:我们对开放权重模型的立场。CEO Dario Amodei 再次强调,威权政府打造“比美国开发的模型更强大的 AI 模型”存在风险,模型也可能“被滥用于实施网络攻击或生物攻击”;他呼吁“严厉打击工业规模的蒸馏活动”,同时表示“Anthropic 从未主张禁止开放权重模型”。
随后,7 月 28 日,Pacing the Frontier发布,签署者包括“1,324 名前沿 AI 公司员工”——其中包括 OpenAI 首席科学家 Jakub Pachocki、Safe Superintelligence Inc 的 Ilya Sutskever(此前任职于 OpenAI)、Anthropic 的 Dario Amodei、Anthropic 的 Jack Clark 等人。其核心诉求是:
我们请求美国政府支持一项国际努力,开发必要的技术和治理工具,以审慎控制自动化 AI 开发的前沿发展速度。
他们担忧的是,激烈的竞争压力与自动化 AI 研究所带来的 AI 进步加速会相互叠加;而考虑到 Anthropic 80% 的代码由 Claude Code 产出、OpenAI 曾让 Sol 将其端到端服务成本降低 20%,以及 Kimi K3 为基于自身架构构建的 nano 模型设计了一枚芯片,你就能理解为什么人们现在正更严肃地看待这一风险。
English / 原文
Open letters about AI development
I wrote this summary of the past few weeks of open letters as a section ofmy sponsors-only newsletter but I've decided to share it here as well.
Open Weights and American AI Leadership was shepherded by Microsoft, dated July 24th, and signed by 235 AI-adjacent companies including NVIDIA, Amazon, Y Combinator, The Linux Foundation and (a later signer) OpenAI.
It's clearly an argument designed to counter any instincts by the current US government to ban or limit open weight models over "safety" concerns - a reasonable consideration given what happened to Claude Fable 5!
Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect. And concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk. It results in a small number of single points of failure, weakens competition, and leaves critical technology in the hands of a few providers. Open weight models, on the other hand, allow a broad community of researchers and developers to examine their behavior, identify vulnerabilities, develop safeguards, and improve them over time.
The one surprising note in the letter is that it comes out in support of distillation, where models train on output from other models:
In shaping this ecosystem, policymakers should be careful not to conflate legitimate model-development techniques with misappropriation. Distillation, or the practice of using one model’s outputs to help train or improve another, is a widely used technique for model improvement, evaluation, and validation. It reflects a long tradition of learning from, building upon, and improving existing technologies, a tradition that has helped drive innovation since the rise of the open-source software movement.
Notably absent from the signatures: Anthropic, who published their own response Our position on open-weights models three days later. CEO Dario Amodei doubled down on the risk of authoritarian governments building "AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US", and models being "misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks", and called for "a crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations", while also stating that "Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models".
Then on July 28th Pacing the Frontier was published, featuring signatures from "1,324 employees of frontier AI companies" - with names like Jakub Pachocki (Chief Scientist, OpenAI), Ilya Sutskever (Safe Superintelligence Inc, previously OpenAI), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Jack Clark (Anthropic) and more. Their core message:
We request that the U.S. government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.
Their concern is intense competitive pressure combined with accelerated AI progress caused by automated AI research - and given that Anthropic produce 80% of their code with Claude Code, OpenAI had Sol reduce their end-to-end serving costs by 20%, and Kimi K3 designed a chip to serve a nano model built on its own architecture, you can see why people are taking that risk more seriously right now.