6 ms·

Yandex Image Search is today is what Google Image Search should have been. End of the day I’ll use what actually gets the job done. Same goes for OpenAI and G

Yandex Image Search is today is what Google Image Search should have been. End of the day I’ll use what actually gets the job done. Same goes for OpenAI and Google AI. If you don’t actually ever release and let others use your stuff and end paralyzed in fear at what your models may do then someone else is gonna release the same tech, and at this rate it seems like that’ll be Chinese or Russian companies who don’t share your sensibilities at all, and their models will be the ones that end up productized.

SXX 4y ago
OpenAI should just rebrand since nothing they do is actually open.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  You know 100 years ago you could just buy uranium openly? Leo Szílard hustled up 200 kilograms, pleted, in the 30's.
  - SXX 4y ago
    What does it have to do with OpenAI branding? Their "moral" reasoning behind not publishing models is simply laughtable because they do sell API access to them to anyone who can pay. And "bad guys" generally have money.
    - sanxiyn 4y ago
      They can (and do) revoke API access from bad guys. They can't do that to downloaded models. Look, I don't like what OpenAI does, but "API access, but no model download" makes sense if you are worried about misuses.
      - ggktk 4y ago
        Bad actors still can get access to such models. It even makes them more dangerous than it would if everyone had access to them. Here's an alternative: progressively release better and better models (like 3B params, 10B, 50B, 100B) and let people figure out the best way to fight against bad actors using them.
        sanxiyn 4y ago
        > It even makes them more dangerous than it would if everyone had access to them. This is the sort of argument that proves guns would be less dangerous if everyone had access to them.
        prometheus76 4y ago
        "An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein
        CRConrad 4y ago
        He was an author of fiction. They usually write a lot of stuff that is on some deeper level "true", even though it is on the surface fictional... And a lot of stuff that isn't. Or sometimes both, because it's only part of the truth. Maybe the complete version should be: "An armed society is a 'polite' society, but with very frequent killings and not-infrequent massacres." I think I prefer living in a less "polite" society.
        adamc 4y ago
        "It even makes them more dangerous..." needs to be demonstrated, not asserted.
      - SXX 4y ago
        Every company out there says it will "revoke API access for misuse", but do they have transparency reports? Who do they even consider bad guys and what do they consider as misuse? I would be totally on their side if their reasoning was that they dont publish models to compete with FAANG more efficiently and get more income for their research, but this moral reasoning just sounds completely fake because bad actors do have funding to train their own models.
        sanxiyn 4y ago
        OpenAI published "Lessons Learned on Language Model Safety and Misuse" in March. https://openai.com/blog/language-model-safety-and-misuse/ https://openai.com/blog/language-model-safety-and-misuse/ It also promised "forthcoming publication". Examples of "real cases of misuse encountered in the wild" include "spam promotions for dubious medical products and roleplaying of racist fantasies". Yes, some bad actors can train their own models, but OpenAI can't do much about that either way. It is doubtful whether spam promoters of dubious medical products can, at least for a while.
        true_religion 4y ago
        It would be better for misuse to be criminalized and taken care of by national governments, rather than leave it to for-profit companies to decide what is or isn't "misuse". Personally, I think using AI to manufacture advertisements on demand is misuse... but will Google agree with me?
        frozencell 4y ago
        National governments are often the criminals themselves, or their partner.
      - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
        >if you are worried about misuses why is morality into this? is this the same discussion of car manufacturers not selling cars to certain people because they are worried about misuse?
        sanxiyn 4y ago
        Automotive companies, in fact, have product liability. It's about liability, not morality.
        2Gkashmiri 4y ago
        when you release a project into the wild under a permissive license, aren't you essentially washing yourself from any "liability" ? > MIT " IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." don't commercial licenses have same/similar wording so what liability are you talking about?
        daniel-cussen 4y ago
        So they do that because they're doing it for free. Otherwise they couldn't be generous with their work--those licenses are about permitting the generous intent.
    - Aspie96 4y ago
      We all know the real reason. They used to be a non-profit with a mission, now they are a for-profit with the only mission of money.
  - remram 4y ago
    Maybe they should rename to SafeAI, if their concern is controlling access.
    - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
      Good point. The issue is not the policy per se, it's the fact that their name is not accurate.
      - Aspie96 4y ago
        I mean, the policy is kind of shit too, given that they used to have the mission of being open. But yes, the name is not what it should be, given their current ideas.
sereja 4y ago
IMO the main reason these companies don't release their models is not ethical concerns but money: - NVIDIA sells GPUs and interconnect needed for training large models. Releasing a pretrained LM would hurt sales, while only publishing a teaser paper boosts them. - Google, Microsoft, and Amazon offer ML-as-a-service and TPU/GPU hardware as a part of their cloud computing platforms. Russian and Chinese companies also have their clouds, but they have low global market share and aren't cost-efficient, so nobody would use them to train large LMs anyway. - OpenAI are selling their models as an API with a huge markup over inference costs; they are also largely sponsored by the aforementioned companies, further aligning their interests with them. Companies that release large models are simply those who have nothing to lose by doing so. Unfortunately, you need a lot of idle hardware to train them, and companies that have it tend to also launch a public cloud with it, so there is a perpetual conflict of interests here.
jowday 4y ago
The “ethical concerns” thing is just a progressive-sounding excuse for why they’re not going to give their models away for free. I guarantee you those models are going to be integrated into various Google products in some form or another.
gaudat 4y ago
This reminded me of a shitpost comparing Google and Yandex. https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/78144754/#78145600 https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/78144754/#78145600

SXX 4y ago

OpenAI should just rebrand since nothing they do is actually open.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
You know 100 years ago you could just buy uranium openly? Leo Szílard hustled up 200 kilograms, pleted, in the 30's.
- SXX 4y ago
  What does it have to do with OpenAI branding? Their "moral" reasoning behind not publishing models is simply laughtable because they do sell API access to them to anyone who can pay. And "bad guys" generally have money.
  - sanxiyn 4y ago
    They can (and do) revoke API access from bad guys. They can't do that to downloaded models. Look, I don't like what OpenAI does, but "API access, but no model download" makes sense if you are worried about misuses.
    - ggktk 4y ago
      Bad actors still can get access to such models. It even makes them more dangerous than it would if everyone had access to them. Here's an alternative: progressively release better and better models (like 3B params, 10B, 50B, 100B) and let people figure out the best way to fight against bad actors using them.
      - sanxiyn 4y ago
        > It even makes them more dangerous than it would if everyone had access to them. This is the sort of argument that proves guns would be less dangerous if everyone had access to them.
        prometheus76 4y ago
        "An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Heinlein
        CRConrad 4y ago
        He was an author of fiction. They usually write a lot of stuff that is on some deeper level "true", even though it is on the surface fictional... And a lot of stuff that isn't. Or sometimes both, because it's only part of the truth. Maybe the complete version should be: "An armed society is a 'polite' society, but with very frequent killings and not-infrequent massacres." I think I prefer living in a less "polite" society.
      - adamc 4y ago
        "It even makes them more dangerous..." needs to be demonstrated, not asserted.
    - SXX 4y ago
      Every company out there says it will "revoke API access for misuse", but do they have transparency reports? Who do they even consider bad guys and what do they consider as misuse? I would be totally on their side if their reasoning was that they dont publish models to compete with FAANG more efficiently and get more income for their research, but this moral reasoning just sounds completely fake because bad actors do have funding to train their own models.
      - sanxiyn 4y ago
        OpenAI published "Lessons Learned on Language Model Safety and Misuse" in March. https://openai.com/blog/language-model-safety-and-misuse/ https://openai.com/blog/language-model-safety-and-misuse/ It also promised "forthcoming publication". Examples of "real cases of misuse encountered in the wild" include "spam promotions for dubious medical products and roleplaying of racist fantasies". Yes, some bad actors can train their own models, but OpenAI can't do much about that either way. It is doubtful whether spam promoters of dubious medical products can, at least for a while.
        true_religion 4y ago
        It would be better for misuse to be criminalized and taken care of by national governments, rather than leave it to for-profit companies to decide what is or isn't "misuse". Personally, I think using AI to manufacture advertisements on demand is misuse... but will Google agree with me?
        frozencell 4y ago
        National governments are often the criminals themselves, or their partner.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      >if you are worried about misuses why is morality into this? is this the same discussion of car manufacturers not selling cars to certain people because they are worried about misuse?
      - sanxiyn 4y ago
        Automotive companies, in fact, have product liability. It's about liability, not morality.
        2Gkashmiri 4y ago
        when you release a project into the wild under a permissive license, aren't you essentially washing yourself from any "liability" ? > MIT " IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." don't commercial licenses have same/similar wording so what liability are you talking about?
        daniel-cussen 4y ago
        So they do that because they're doing it for free. Otherwise they couldn't be generous with their work--those licenses are about permitting the generous intent.
  - Aspie96 4y ago
    We all know the real reason. They used to be a non-profit with a mission, now they are a for-profit with the only mission of money.
- remram 4y ago
  Maybe they should rename to SafeAI, if their concern is controlling access.
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    Good point. The issue is not the policy per se, it's the fact that their name is not accurate.
    - Aspie96 4y ago
      I mean, the policy is kind of shit too, given that they used to have the mission of being open. But yes, the name is not what it should be, given their current ideas.

sereja 4y ago

IMO the main reason these companies don't release their models is not ethical concerns but money: - NVIDIA sells GPUs and interconnect needed for training large models. Releasing a pretrained LM would hurt sales, while only publishing a teaser paper boosts them. - Google, Microsoft, and Amazon offer ML-as-a-service and TPU/GPU hardware as a part of their cloud computing platforms. Russian and Chinese companies also have their clouds, but they have low global market share and aren't cost-efficient, so nobody would use them to train large LMs anyway. - OpenAI are selling their models as an API with a huge markup over inference costs; they are also largely sponsored by the aforementioned companies, further aligning their interests with them. Companies that release large models are simply those who have nothing to lose by doing so. Unfortunately, you need a lot of idle hardware to train them, and companies that have it tend to also launch a public cloud with it, so there is a perpetual conflict of interests here.

jowday 4y ago

The “ethical concerns” thing is just a progressive-sounding excuse for why they’re not going to give their models away for free. I guarantee you those models are going to be integrated into various Google products in some form or another.

gaudat 4y ago

This reminded me of a shitpost comparing Google and Yandex. https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/78144754/#78145600 https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/78144754/#78145600