5 ms·

Does enabling to run LLMs at home really strengthen democracy? People may believe that, but it potentially enables AI to run on any device with a low footprint

Does enabling to run LLMs at home really strengthen democracy? People may believe that, but it potentially enables AI to run on any device with a low footprint for surveillance purposes as well, and governments don't even have to pay for the development...

wsgeorge 4y ago
> Does enabling to run LLMs at home really strengthen democracy? Well, I can't speak about strengthening democracy for sure, but what I see is that AI will become a significant means of digital production, and we wouldn't want those means to be in the hands of a few people. > but it potentially enables AI to run on any device with a low footprint for surveillance purposes as well, Yes, a low barrier for inference cuts both ways. That is a risk.
smrtinsert 4y ago
If you're referring to this passage > democratising the means of digital production is the difference between a dystopian authoritarian future and an empowered (and admittedly chaotic) humanity The usage here means make accessible to everyone.
- tgv 4y ago
  While I'm generally in favor of redistribution of wealth, power and knowledge, this doesn't seem an insight so trivial that it can be asserted without underpinning to me, nor congruent with history. Industrialization was essential or at least catalytic to democracy, which happened without public control over production production means (I'm ignoring the Marxist view in this).
XorNot 4y ago
A low barrier to entry for surveillance means citizens can more easily watch their governments too. As long as surveillance tech requires big resources, governments will have the edge. Miniaturize it, decentralize it, and it means citizens and public interest organizations can hold the government accountable more easily (this is, notably, what OSINT is all about).
- Simran-B 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that you get arrested quickly if you start to surveil random politicians even in very democratic states...
michaelt 4y ago
It depends on how you think technology relates to democracy. If you think this is the modern-day equivalent of a printing press, it's vital to avoid this being in the hands of only one or two multi-billion-dollar corporations with a history of morally questionable moves. If you think privacy rights and freedom from surveillance are critical to democracy, you want your smart speaker or video doorbell to do all its processing on board, without uploading recordings to the cloud. And you want your neighbour's doorbell to do the same. And frankly, nobody goes after Microsoft Word when someone writes Xi Jinping satire using it, or ICE buy it - because people know it's a tool rather than a platform. On the other hand, if you think ML technology is going to produce the next wave of fake amazon reviews and forum spam - you might be a lot less eager to see it in the hands of everyone. If you think society will be slow to adapt to things like deepfakes; and that cops and corporations will immediately start using things like facial recognition technology - well, then wider access to ML might seem to have a great many downsides.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  The washing machine is one of the biggest game changer in the world, allowing people to suddenly have, like a noble used to have, the equivalent of a servant to do a tremendously costly chore. Without the slavery part. I think AI has the same potential: filling administrative work, walking the complexity of an information overloaded world, keeping up to date with laws you can't ignore but have no way to know about, planning logistics that our modern life impose on us... Suddenly, like the CEO of today, every one will be able to have a secretary. Yes, that can make a huge different. Don't think about AI as the thing we have today. GPT the nokia 3310 of AI. Amazing, but very basic. Think that one day, somebody will come out with the iphone of AI.
  - namaria 4y ago
    You're just extending the lines in a way you like to imagine. Kinda like wishing for flying cars when we can't even make them navigate 2D city streets autonomously.
    - 4y ago
chatmasta 4y ago
Much of the fear of AI is really a fear of concentrated increase in power of those controlling it. Decentralizing models mitigates that risk by spreading the power amongst a more diffuse population. I don't see how it should be any different from the PC revolution. We've all got a 1970s supercomputer in our pocket now, for better or worse. But it's certainly preferable to only the richest and most powerful having one.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  Computers can’t think for themselves. It’s more like if everybody had a trained police dog - one of those dogs that will bite and not let go, would you feel safer walking around? “Hey OpenChatGPT, find a list of every person who has ever wronged me and constantly harass them with death threats from behind seven proxies” Yeah that will make the world better.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    "Hey OpenChatGPT, find a list of every person who's asked OpenChatGPT to harass me, and block any harassing messages likely originating from them." It works both ways. Attack and defense.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Spot on. Broadly speaking, if you want peace you have to prepare for war. If you don’t distribute and democratize power, those who typically control it in concentrated form will weaponize and wield it (power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that jazz). You may not feel the need to construct a strong defense because of your disposition and mental model, but you should because of the motivations and mental models of those building a strong offense. A take as old as time. History books are always written by the victors.
  - HardlyCurious 4y ago
    What is this fear mongering? With logic like this we would have banned the internet in the early 90s.
jokethrowaway 4y ago
How is democracy a good thing? It's literally the dictatorship of the majority over all the other minorities. We should move towards decentralising power (ideally up to the individual level), not strengthening democracy. Democracy is just a tool we use to decide what to do with the collective power we have. And enabling everyone to run LLMs definitely helps everyone to become more independent of governments and large corporations.

wsgeorge 4y ago

> Does enabling to run LLMs at home really strengthen democracy? Well, I can't speak about strengthening democracy for sure, but what I see is that AI will become a significant means of digital production, and we wouldn't want those means to be in the hands of a few people. > but it potentially enables AI to run on any device with a low footprint for surveillance purposes as well, Yes, a low barrier for inference cuts both ways. That is a risk.

smrtinsert 4y ago

If you're referring to this passage > democratising the means of digital production is the difference between a dystopian authoritarian future and an empowered (and admittedly chaotic) humanity The usage here means make accessible to everyone.

tgv 4y ago
While I'm generally in favor of redistribution of wealth, power and knowledge, this doesn't seem an insight so trivial that it can be asserted without underpinning to me, nor congruent with history. Industrialization was essential or at least catalytic to democracy, which happened without public control over production production means (I'm ignoring the Marxist view in this).

XorNot 4y ago

A low barrier to entry for surveillance means citizens can more easily watch their governments too. As long as surveillance tech requires big resources, governments will have the edge. Miniaturize it, decentralize it, and it means citizens and public interest organizations can hold the government accountable more easily (this is, notably, what OSINT is all about).

Simran-B 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that you get arrested quickly if you start to surveil random politicians even in very democratic states...

michaelt 4y ago

It depends on how you think technology relates to democracy. If you think this is the modern-day equivalent of a printing press, it's vital to avoid this being in the hands of only one or two multi-billion-dollar corporations with a history of morally questionable moves. If you think privacy rights and freedom from surveillance are critical to democracy, you want your smart speaker or video doorbell to do all its processing on board, without uploading recordings to the cloud. And you want your neighbour's doorbell to do the same. And frankly, nobody goes after Microsoft Word when someone writes Xi Jinping satire using it, or ICE buy it - because people know it's a tool rather than a platform. On the other hand, if you think ML technology is going to produce the next wave of fake amazon reviews and forum spam - you might be a lot less eager to see it in the hands of everyone. If you think society will be slow to adapt to things like deepfakes; and that cops and corporations will immediately start using things like facial recognition technology - well, then wider access to ML might seem to have a great many downsides.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
The washing machine is one of the biggest game changer in the world, allowing people to suddenly have, like a noble used to have, the equivalent of a servant to do a tremendously costly chore. Without the slavery part. I think AI has the same potential: filling administrative work, walking the complexity of an information overloaded world, keeping up to date with laws you can't ignore but have no way to know about, planning logistics that our modern life impose on us... Suddenly, like the CEO of today, every one will be able to have a secretary. Yes, that can make a huge different. Don't think about AI as the thing we have today. GPT the nokia 3310 of AI. Amazing, but very basic. Think that one day, somebody will come out with the iphone of AI.
- namaria 4y ago
  You're just extending the lines in a way you like to imagine. Kinda like wishing for flying cars when we can't even make them navigate 2D city streets autonomously.
  - 4y ago

chatmasta 4y ago

Much of the fear of AI is really a fear of concentrated increase in power of those controlling it. Decentralizing models mitigates that risk by spreading the power amongst a more diffuse population. I don't see how it should be any different from the PC revolution. We've all got a 1970s supercomputer in our pocket now, for better or worse. But it's certainly preferable to only the richest and most powerful having one.

zarzavat 4y ago
Computers can’t think for themselves. It’s more like if everybody had a trained police dog - one of those dogs that will bite and not let go, would you feel safer walking around? “Hey OpenChatGPT, find a list of every person who has ever wronged me and constantly harass them with death threats from behind seven proxies” Yeah that will make the world better.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  "Hey OpenChatGPT, find a list of every person who's asked OpenChatGPT to harass me, and block any harassing messages likely originating from them." It works both ways. Attack and defense.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Spot on. Broadly speaking, if you want peace you have to prepare for war. If you don’t distribute and democratize power, those who typically control it in concentrated form will weaponize and wield it (power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that jazz). You may not feel the need to construct a strong defense because of your disposition and mental model, but you should because of the motivations and mental models of those building a strong offense. A take as old as time. History books are always written by the victors.
- HardlyCurious 4y ago
  What is this fear mongering? With logic like this we would have banned the internet in the early 90s.

jokethrowaway 4y ago

How is democracy a good thing? It's literally the dictatorship of the majority over all the other minorities. We should move towards decentralising power (ideally up to the individual level), not strengthening democracy. Democracy is just a tool we use to decide what to do with the collective power we have. And enabling everyone to run LLMs definitely helps everyone to become more independent of governments and large corporations.