3 ms·
1) I don't think this is an apt analogy. The GPT danger argued here is less a "GPT missile gap" one, and more of a "Skynet / HorizonZeroDawn" one. Openness make
by tpoacher 4y ago
1) I don't think this is an apt analogy. The GPT danger argued here is less a "GPT missile gap" one, and more of a "Skynet / HorizonZeroDawn" one. Openness makes the latter scenario less likely.
2) There's a big difference between commercial and academic research, particularly in terms of incentives (though the gap has narrowed significantly in recent years). But, research is rarely "disney villain" material to be stamped anyway; good research can be used for evil and vice versa. But at least in academia you're supposed to have ethics committees and academic standards to uphold.
3) I dont accept this argument. It has a very "ban encryption / think of the children" vibe to me. The idea that openness makes the life of spammers ever-so-slightly easier and therefore we should not have openness is bizzare. Spammers will spam regardless, and spamming tools being proprietary isn't exactly a deterrant. The only thing you lose by blocking openness is ... well, openness.