4 ms·

There's no need to presume lobbying. Freely released models, by definition, don't have a regulation body. It would be like replicators suddenly made it possib

There's no need to presume lobbying. Freely released models, by definition, don't have a regulation body. It would be like replicators suddenly made it possible for anyone to produce automobiles or firearms with nearly zero variable costs. These things have life-changing consequences, so there are expectations of quality, safety and record keeping. The simple truth is that our information tools have become so complex that they're capable of significant consequences. Bots already are being used to wage war on information, notably Russia's socio-political war that the U.S. doesn't even realize that it is in. That said, it doesn't mean that models must be proprietary. If anything, this must be treated like crypto protocols: open to many eyes and liberal amounts of sunshine to prevent anyone from encoding a Manchurian candidate.

twoodfin 3y ago
I’m struggling to understand the qualitative difference between a) the risks of openly available transformer models vs. API-restricted access in 2023 and b) the risks of cheaply available home computers vs. centralized, more easily regulated mini- and mainframe computers in 1983 I mean, look at what that kid from WarGames was able to do!
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  > that kid from WarGames That would be Kevin Mitnick. Oddly, the Wikipedia page doesn't seem to mention the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    Just whom I was thinking of IRL. If you run through the letter's concerns about risk, they just about all got a lot worse once a "hacker" could get a general purpose computer and a 2400 baud modem for around the same inflation-adjusted price as a nice AI/ML-optimized setup today. But I don't think senators at the time were sending ominous letters to the Steves & BillG asking why they were letting the general public have access to these dangerous tools rather than guarding them in machine rooms like IBM.
- r9550684 3y ago
  I suspect if various stakeholders (u.s. senate, various corporate interest groups, etc) understood the implications of the home computers, they would've not hesitated to ban and otherwise regulate them. Up until early 2000s home computers were seen as toys for nerds (people forget!), a perspective that I'm sure many of them now regret.

twoodfin 3y ago

I’m struggling to understand the qualitative difference between a) the risks of openly available transformer models vs. API-restricted access in 2023 and b) the risks of cheaply available home computers vs. centralized, more easily regulated mini- and mainframe computers in 1983 I mean, look at what that kid from WarGames was able to do!

cassianoleal 3y ago
> that kid from WarGames That would be Kevin Mitnick. Oddly, the Wikipedia page doesn't seem to mention the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Just whom I was thinking of IRL. If you run through the letter's concerns about risk, they just about all got a lot worse once a "hacker" could get a general purpose computer and a 2400 baud modem for around the same inflation-adjusted price as a nice AI/ML-optimized setup today. But I don't think senators at the time were sending ominous letters to the Steves & BillG asking why they were letting the general public have access to these dangerous tools rather than guarding them in machine rooms like IBM.
r9550684 3y ago
I suspect if various stakeholders (u.s. senate, various corporate interest groups, etc) understood the implications of the home computers, they would've not hesitated to ban and otherwise regulate them. Up until early 2000s home computers were seen as toys for nerds (people forget!), a perspective that I'm sure many of them now regret.