4 ms·

While censoring the full data set seems in some way to support the rationale of the OpenAI charter, it also means that only state actors and very well-funded en

While censoring the full data set seems in some way to support the rationale of the OpenAI charter, it also means that only state actors and very well-funded entities will be able to use the work to create models of the size necessary to do the impressive stuff in the write up. Based on the concerns, it would seem that restricting the capabilities only to state actors would have the opposite of the intended effect. Why not let thousands of amateur researchers, undergrads, etc., use the model to detect instances where the model was used to generate text, etc.?

skybrian 8y ago
I would guess this reduces the risk. Why would you say it does the opposite? My argument: state actors might misuse this tech, but letting any script kiddie do whatever they want almost guarantees someone will misuse it.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  Which is exactly what happens whenever there's a leak of NSA or other foreign government 'hacking' tools. As soon as they're public, ransomware authors and other shitty actors all deploy them to steal as much as possible before systems are patched. Case-in-point: Wannacry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack NotPetya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petya_(malware)#2017_cyberattack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petya_(malware)#2017_cyberatta...
  - resters 8y ago
    I think it’s a bit different because the attacks are not entirely clear. The power of many of the attacks would be for them to fly under the radar because nobody was expecting it. So having lots of script kiddie attacks (which would be sloppier and easier to notice) would lead to a more rapid adoption of safeguards.
jfoster 8y ago
They can always revisit the decision once other entities seem to have made this progress. In the meantime, they don't have to be so disruptive.
lostmsu 8y ago
Or, in 3 years, anyone. I suggest everyone start thinking on ramifications now.

skybrian 8y ago

I would guess this reduces the risk. Why would you say it does the opposite? My argument: state actors might misuse this tech, but letting any script kiddie do whatever they want almost guarantees someone will misuse it.

mikeyouse 8y ago
Which is exactly what happens whenever there's a leak of NSA or other foreign government 'hacking' tools. As soon as they're public, ransomware authors and other shitty actors all deploy them to steal as much as possible before systems are patched. Case-in-point: Wannacry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack NotPetya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petya_(malware)#2017_cyberattack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petya_(malware)#2017_cyberatta...
- resters 8y ago
  I think it’s a bit different because the attacks are not entirely clear. The power of many of the attacks would be for them to fly under the radar because nobody was expecting it. So having lots of script kiddie attacks (which would be sloppier and easier to notice) would lead to a more rapid adoption of safeguards.

jfoster 8y ago

They can always revisit the decision once other entities seem to have made this progress. In the meantime, they don't have to be so disruptive.

lostmsu 8y ago

Or, in 3 years, anyone. I suggest everyone start thinking on ramifications now.