9 ms·

So instead of building a product that will compete with closed corporate models, mozilla will invest on Safety? I guess their donors are happy with that Safety

by seydor 4y ago

So instead of building a product that will compete with closed corporate models, mozilla will invest on Safety? I guess their donors are happy with that Safety is a corporate concern (because they want to sell it in a cloud) What we want are fully-open-source models that we can download and use as we please. I guess we ll need to stick with pirates for that https://twitter.com/nicholasadeleon/status/1638359262572474368 https://twitter.com/nicholasadeleon/status/16383592625724743...

huslage 4y ago
There already are tons of open source models. Some of them good. Check out Huggingface. BLOOM comes to mind as a decent starting point.
- oefrha 4y ago
  They are good but not ChatGPT/GPT-4 good which is the standard of good that really blew up lately. Meanwhile Mozilla is investing in… AI ethicists? The most useless segment of the AI landscape? (Information is scarce so maybe this interpretation is wrong.) Well, at least it does align with their other activism.
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    Somebody has to do it - do we really trust big corporations to hire their own AI ethicists to police themselves? A part of me hopes they are able to use money Google gives them for some of this - although that may be reserved for just Firefox.
    - shreyshnaccount 4y ago
      and with the recent firing of all the ai ethics teams from Google and Microsoft...
- Trapais 4y ago
  [flagged]
zarzavat 4y ago
I don’t understand this point of view. Real AGI is likely to have a destabilizing effect on society. Fully open source AI is an accelerant to that outcome. Does anyone, outside of a small group of tinkerers, really want the AI revolution, especially a free-for-all open source outcome?
- seydor 4y ago
  i thought this was called 'hacker' news
- archon1410 4y ago
  > Does anyone, outside of a small group of tinkerers, really want the AI revolution, especially a free-for-all open source outcome? Most people outside of a small group of "AI alignment" thinkers want a free-for-all open source AI revolution. Just take a look at /r/StableDiffusion or /r/singularity.
  - ch71r22 4y ago
    I don't think /r/StableDiffusion or /r/singularity are representative of most people
    - archon1410 4y ago
      They more or less are. Consider this day-old thread[1] from Futurology, a default subreddit with 18 million subscribers. The comments are all lambasting the safety-minded statment of Sam Altman and decrying corporate control of AI. This is what most people believe. Edit: Drawing on tech-related subreddits might be selecting for pro-free-AI people. A Pew Research Survey[2] did find that the number of people more concerned than excited about AI is double that of people more excited than concerned. The biggest concerns there are about job loss and surveillance though, and those people might not care about corporate AI or free-for-all AI, and might even for free-for-all AI. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11wlh4s/openai_ceo_sam_altman_warns_that_other_ai/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11wlh4s/openai_... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/how-americans-think-about-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/how-american...
amrb 4y ago
Alignment in ML is sort of like the three wishes genie story, yeah you get to ask for anything but are you really getting what you asked for? maybe its small hiccups like printing meat recipe's when you told it your a vegan. The impact gets much worse if we start talking about ML controlling banks, power plants, war fighting systems..
Tolaire 4y ago
GPT 4 is harmless, but GPT 7 may be extremely dangerous technology. We cannot trust every random with a laptop with potentially civilization-threatening technology. Leaving AI under the control of corporations obviously sucks, but there are only three options: corporations, governments, or individuals. Assuming the technology becomes powerful enough, the individuals option is obviously suicide. So who should control AI, the government or corporations?
- lannisterstark 4y ago
  >We cannot trust every random with a laptop with potentially civilization-threatening technology. IBM in 80s moment. This is a mind boggling POV. Instead of letting people have better, more democratized access to the same tech, you want to lock it up behind bars so only select few have access to it. >So who should control AI, the government or corporations? The FUCKING PEOPLE. Yeah man, only let govts and corpos have access to this amazing tech. they've TOTALLY always worked out in the favor of the people. They always want what's best for the people and it's not like both govts and corporations want to keep increasing their own powers at the cost of their citizens. Ridiculous take. But then again, most pro-govt and pro-corp takes are.

by seydor 4y ago

huslage 4y ago

There already are tons of open source models. Some of them good. Check out Huggingface. BLOOM comes to mind as a decent starting point.

oefrha 4y ago
They are good but not ChatGPT/GPT-4 good which is the standard of good that really blew up lately. Meanwhile Mozilla is investing in… AI ethicists? The most useless segment of the AI landscape? (Information is scarce so maybe this interpretation is wrong.) Well, at least it does align with their other activism.
- Melatonic 4y ago
  Somebody has to do it - do we really trust big corporations to hire their own AI ethicists to police themselves? A part of me hopes they are able to use money Google gives them for some of this - although that may be reserved for just Firefox.
  - shreyshnaccount 4y ago
    and with the recent firing of all the ai ethics teams from Google and Microsoft...
Trapais 4y ago
[flagged]

zarzavat 4y ago

I don’t understand this point of view. Real AGI is likely to have a destabilizing effect on society. Fully open source AI is an accelerant to that outcome. Does anyone, outside of a small group of tinkerers, really want the AI revolution, especially a free-for-all open source outcome?

seydor 4y ago
i thought this was called 'hacker' news
archon1410 4y ago
> Does anyone, outside of a small group of tinkerers, really want the AI revolution, especially a free-for-all open source outcome? Most people outside of a small group of "AI alignment" thinkers want a free-for-all open source AI revolution. Just take a look at /r/StableDiffusion or /r/singularity.
- ch71r22 4y ago
  I don't think /r/StableDiffusion or /r/singularity are representative of most people
  - archon1410 4y ago
    They more or less are. Consider this day-old thread[1] from Futurology, a default subreddit with 18 million subscribers. The comments are all lambasting the safety-minded statment of Sam Altman and decrying corporate control of AI. This is what most people believe. Edit: Drawing on tech-related subreddits might be selecting for pro-free-AI people. A Pew Research Survey[2] did find that the number of people more concerned than excited about AI is double that of people more excited than concerned. The biggest concerns there are about job loss and surveillance though, and those people might not care about corporate AI or free-for-all AI, and might even for free-for-all AI. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11wlh4s/openai_ceo_sam_altman_warns_that_other_ai/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11wlh4s/openai_... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/how-americans-think-about-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/how-american...

amrb 4y ago

Alignment in ML is sort of like the three wishes genie story, yeah you get to ask for anything but are you really getting what you asked for? maybe its small hiccups like printing meat recipe's when you told it your a vegan. The impact gets much worse if we start talking about ML controlling banks, power plants, war fighting systems..

Tolaire 4y ago

GPT 4 is harmless, but GPT 7 may be extremely dangerous technology. We cannot trust every random with a laptop with potentially civilization-threatening technology. Leaving AI under the control of corporations obviously sucks, but there are only three options: corporations, governments, or individuals. Assuming the technology becomes powerful enough, the individuals option is obviously suicide. So who should control AI, the government or corporations?

lannisterstark 4y ago
>We cannot trust every random with a laptop with potentially civilization-threatening technology. IBM in 80s moment. This is a mind boggling POV. Instead of letting people have better, more democratized access to the same tech, you want to lock it up behind bars so only select few have access to it. >So who should control AI, the government or corporations? The FUCKING PEOPLE. Yeah man, only let govts and corpos have access to this amazing tech. they've TOTALLY always worked out in the favor of the people. They always want what's best for the people and it's not like both govts and corporations want to keep increasing their own powers at the cost of their citizens. Ridiculous take. But then again, most pro-govt and pro-corp takes are.