3 ms·

Another argument the author may not have considered is that by prematurely releasing his implementation, he may be making it more (not less!) likely that future

by ptest1 7y ago

Another argument the author may not have considered is that by prematurely releasing his implementation, he may be making it more (not less!) likely that future discoveries are hidden away from the public. It seems OpenAI wanted to release this project in phases, allowing people time to adjust to its nature. If in the future an even more disruptive project is created (by OpenAI or others), if the creator feels they cannot release it in their own perception of what a “safe” way is, they may simply avoid publishing and instead privately communicate with companies and powerful individuals. Which I don’t think is the outcome the author wants. So I hope he reconsiders here.

MegaButts 7y ago
> It seems OpenAI wanted to release this project in phases, allowing people time to adjust to its nature. Do you really think anyone besides AI enthusiasts are paying attention? It's not like the general public is even aware of this, let alone following its progress.
- ptest1 7y ago
  I may have spoken too generally here. By “people” I meant e.g. engineers at Google, Facebook, Reddit, news outlets, that kind of thing. I see it a bit like a security disclosure.
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    I understand OpenAI is experimenting with their release of the GPT2 model, but I still don't understand their reasoning. If it's too dangerous to release today, what's going to change in the few months before they release it? They don't say why it's too dangerous beyond hand-waving, so it's impossible to be able to protect against that. Security disclosures are much simpler - we found a vulnerability and we will provide time for the company/team/organization to patch it before announcing it to the world so it won't be exploited by bad actors. If OpenAI truly feels they have something akin to nuclear weaponry, and that fewer actors having it is better, than they have to openly admit that they consider themselves better gatekeepers of the technology than the public and back away even further from their non-profit/limited profit ideals. "We are creating this technology for the good of the world, but it's so good we are afraid to let you use it, so only we will benefit from it." I find them wildly inconsistent in their messaging, trying to have the best of everything with none of the drawbacks.

by ptest1 7y ago

MegaButts 7y ago

> It seems OpenAI wanted to release this project in phases, allowing people time to adjust to its nature. Do you really think anyone besides AI enthusiasts are paying attention? It's not like the general public is even aware of this, let alone following its progress.

ptest1 7y ago
I may have spoken too generally here. By “people” I meant e.g. engineers at Google, Facebook, Reddit, news outlets, that kind of thing. I see it a bit like a security disclosure.
- MegaButts 7y ago
  I understand OpenAI is experimenting with their release of the GPT2 model, but I still don't understand their reasoning. If it's too dangerous to release today, what's going to change in the few months before they release it? They don't say why it's too dangerous beyond hand-waving, so it's impossible to be able to protect against that. Security disclosures are much simpler - we found a vulnerability and we will provide time for the company/team/organization to patch it before announcing it to the world so it won't be exploited by bad actors. If OpenAI truly feels they have something akin to nuclear weaponry, and that fewer actors having it is better, than they have to openly admit that they consider themselves better gatekeepers of the technology than the public and back away even further from their non-profit/limited profit ideals. "We are creating this technology for the good of the world, but it's so good we are afraid to let you use it, so only we will benefit from it." I find them wildly inconsistent in their messaging, trying to have the best of everything with none of the drawbacks.