3 ms·
It's just super obvious by this point that none of the AI safety LARP is really about safety it's more about justifying why a technology that to hire the team t
by whywhywhywhy 4y ago
It's just super obvious by this point that none of the AI safety LARP is really about safety it's more about justifying why a technology that to hire the team to work on it requires that work to be published (Apple tried to do it without publishing and struggled to get the talent) but by publishing you lose part of your advantage so the only way to lock that advantage up is to make it so use of the models has to go through you and also trying to push for reasons for others to not have access to the tech required to train their own model.
If you disagree then why is OpenAI's safety committee talking about how you should need a government contract to buy an A100.
- kelipso 4y agoI'm leaning towards this as a big reason. PhDs really want to publish and they tend not to put as much effort into or not find interesting work that cannot be published. The trend in academia is towards making your code and data available but now you can now get around that by saying AI safety.
- pksebben 4y ago| If you disagree then why is OpenAI's safety committee talking about how you should need a government contract to buy an A100. Fuck, really? I hadn't heard about this. If true, it's the godfather of all ladder pulls. Not to mention, it's categorically awful to silo this stuff and grant it to an org that's so opaque. Good luck separating the wheat from the propaganda chaff without access to the tools that produce it.