4 ms·

"If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. Military applications are a small subset and are unaffected by copyright issues.

by jhptrg 3y ago

"If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. Military applications are a small subset and are unaffected by copyright issues. Applications can be trained in secrecy. The copyright, plagiarism and unemployment issues are entirely disjoint from the national security issues. If North Korea trains a chat bot using material that is prohibited for training by a special license, so what? They already don't respect IP.

Enginerrrd 3y ago
I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what that's done to the pocketbook of the middle class. No. Thank. You.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Welcome to Moloch. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
- Enginerrrd 3y ago
  Just to expand upon this further. I am also deeply frustrated that my application for API access to GPT4 appears to have been a whisper into the void, meanwhile Sam Altman's buddies or people with the Tech-Good-Ol-Boy connections have gotten a multi-month head-start on any commercial applications. That's not a fair and level playing field. Is that really what we want to cement in with regulation??
  - gl-prod 3y ago
    May I also expand this even further. I'm frustrated that I don't have access to OpenAI. I can't use it to build any applications, and they are putting us behind in this market. Only as customers not as a developers.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I enjoyed casually playing with ChatGPT until they just arbitrarily decided to ban the IP ranges I browse from. Keep in mind I had already given in and spilled one of my phone numbers to them. That's the kind of arbitrary and capricious authoritarianism that "Open" AI is already engaged in. I don't trust these corporate hucksters one bit. As I've said in a previous comment: if they want to demonstrate their earnest benevolence, why don't they work on regulation to reign in the previous humanity-enslaving mess they created - commercial mass surveillance.
- afpx 3y ago
  Google and others had similar products which were never released. No wonder why. There are literally billions of people that can be empowered by these tools. Imagine what will result when the tens of thousands of “one in a million” intellects are given access to knowledge that only the richest people have had. Rich incumbents have reason to be worried. The dangers of tools like these are overblown. It was already possible for smart actors to inflict massive damage (mass poisoning, infrastructure attacks, etc). There are so many ways for a person to cause damage, and you know what? Few people do it. Most Humans stay in their lane and instead choose to create things. The real thing people in power are worried about is competition. They want their monopoly on power. I’m really optimistic of legislation like Japan’s that allows training of LLM on copyrighted material. Looking for great things from them. I hope!
  - nradov 3y ago
    Those LLM tools are great as productivity enhancers but they don't really provide access to additional knowledge.
    - afpx 3y ago
      I can’t see how that perspective holds. I’ve learned a ton already. Right now, I’m learning algebraic topology. And, I’m in my 50s with a 1 in 20 intellect. Sure, sometimes it leads me astray but generally it keeps course.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      What does that mean exactly? In theory with the internet I have access to most of the data humanity created. But that's not much different than throwing me on a raft in the middle of the ocean and going 'here, all the water you want. Especially with search just getting so crappy and seo spam filled. It's something I can use to refine the knowledge I have by helping to focus the torrent.
  - dontupvoteme 3y ago
    Google probably held back because a good searchbot cannibalizes their search (which is constantly getting worse and worse for years now..)
- rnd0 3y ago
  I, for one, 100% expect that outcome -that it will be locked away "for our own good". Fill your boots while you can, everyone. The great consolidation is here!
HPsquared 3y ago
"Evil people" is a broader category than military opponents.
beebeepka 3y ago
Why does it have to be NK? Why would adversaries respect IP in the first place? Makes zero sense. I would expect a rational actor to put out some PR about integrity and such, but otherwise, sounds like a narrative that should only appeal to naive children
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Because countries that consistently go back on their word lose trust from the rest of the world. Even North Korea is a Berne copyright signatory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements#Maps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation... But in general copyright doesn't apply to governments, even here in the US. The North Korean government can violate copyright all it wants to, its subject citizens can't, though. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/state-entity-shielded-liability-copyright-infringement-sovereign-immunity https://www.natlawreview.com/article/state-entity-shielded-l...
barbariangrunge 3y ago
The economy is a national security issue though. If other countries take over the globalized economy due to leveraging ai, it is destructive. And, after all, the Soviet Union fell due to economic and spending related issues, not due to military maneuvers
- FpUser 3y ago
  >"If other countries take over the globalized economy due to leveraging ai, it is destructive." I think it would likely be a constant competition rather than take over. Why is it destructive?
tomrod 3y ago
I think it's actually a reasonable argument when the only equilibrium is MAD.
indymike 3y ago
> Military applications are a small subset Military applications are a tiny subset of evil that can be done with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. So much of the global economy is based on IP, and AI appears to be good at appropriating it and shoveling out near infringements at a breathtaking scale. Ironically, AI can paraphrase a book about patent law in a few minutes... and never really understand a word it wrote. At the moment AI may be an extistential threat to IP based economies... which is certaintly as much of a national security threat as protecting the water supply. > "If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. This is a good argument if the cow was still in the barn. At this moment, we're all passengers trying to figure out where all of this is going. It's change, and it's easy to be afraid of it. I suspect, though, just like all changes in the past AI could just make life better. Maybe.
ghaff 3y ago
There are a number of largely disjoint issues/questions. - AI may be literally dangerous technology (i.e. Skynet) - AI may cause mass unemployment - AI may not be dangerous but it's a critical technology for national security (We can't afford an AI gap.) - Generative AI may be violating copyright (which is really just a government policy question)

by jhptrg 3y ago

Enginerrrd 3y ago

I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what that's done to the pocketbook of the middle class. No. Thank. You.

pixl97 3y ago
Welcome to Moloch. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Enginerrrd 3y ago
Just to expand upon this further. I am also deeply frustrated that my application for API access to GPT4 appears to have been a whisper into the void, meanwhile Sam Altman's buddies or people with the Tech-Good-Ol-Boy connections have gotten a multi-month head-start on any commercial applications. That's not a fair and level playing field. Is that really what we want to cement in with regulation??
- gl-prod 3y ago
  May I also expand this even further. I'm frustrated that I don't have access to OpenAI. I can't use it to build any applications, and they are putting us behind in this market. Only as customers not as a developers.
- mindslight 3y ago
  I enjoyed casually playing with ChatGPT until they just arbitrarily decided to ban the IP ranges I browse from. Keep in mind I had already given in and spilled one of my phone numbers to them. That's the kind of arbitrary and capricious authoritarianism that "Open" AI is already engaged in. I don't trust these corporate hucksters one bit. As I've said in a previous comment: if they want to demonstrate their earnest benevolence, why don't they work on regulation to reign in the previous humanity-enslaving mess they created - commercial mass surveillance.
afpx 3y ago
Google and others had similar products which were never released. No wonder why. There are literally billions of people that can be empowered by these tools. Imagine what will result when the tens of thousands of “one in a million” intellects are given access to knowledge that only the richest people have had. Rich incumbents have reason to be worried. The dangers of tools like these are overblown. It was already possible for smart actors to inflict massive damage (mass poisoning, infrastructure attacks, etc). There are so many ways for a person to cause damage, and you know what? Few people do it. Most Humans stay in their lane and instead choose to create things. The real thing people in power are worried about is competition. They want their monopoly on power. I’m really optimistic of legislation like Japan’s that allows training of LLM on copyrighted material. Looking for great things from them. I hope!
- nradov 3y ago
  Those LLM tools are great as productivity enhancers but they don't really provide access to additional knowledge.
  - afpx 3y ago
    I can’t see how that perspective holds. I’ve learned a ton already. Right now, I’m learning algebraic topology. And, I’m in my 50s with a 1 in 20 intellect. Sure, sometimes it leads me astray but generally it keeps course.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    What does that mean exactly? In theory with the internet I have access to most of the data humanity created. But that's not much different than throwing me on a raft in the middle of the ocean and going 'here, all the water you want. Especially with search just getting so crappy and seo spam filled. It's something I can use to refine the knowledge I have by helping to focus the torrent.
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  Google probably held back because a good searchbot cannibalizes their search (which is constantly getting worse and worse for years now..)
rnd0 3y ago
I, for one, 100% expect that outcome -that it will be locked away "for our own good". Fill your boots while you can, everyone. The great consolidation is here!

HPsquared 3y ago

"Evil people" is a broader category than military opponents.

beebeepka 3y ago

Why does it have to be NK? Why would adversaries respect IP in the first place? Makes zero sense. I would expect a rational actor to put out some PR about integrity and such, but otherwise, sounds like a narrative that should only appeal to naive children

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Because countries that consistently go back on their word lose trust from the rest of the world. Even North Korea is a Berne copyright signatory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements#Maps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation... But in general copyright doesn't apply to governments, even here in the US. The North Korean government can violate copyright all it wants to, its subject citizens can't, though. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/state-entity-shielded-liability-copyright-infringement-sovereign-immunity https://www.natlawreview.com/article/state-entity-shielded-l...

barbariangrunge 3y ago

The economy is a national security issue though. If other countries take over the globalized economy due to leveraging ai, it is destructive. And, after all, the Soviet Union fell due to economic and spending related issues, not due to military maneuvers

FpUser 3y ago
>"If other countries take over the globalized economy due to leveraging ai, it is destructive." I think it would likely be a constant competition rather than take over. Why is it destructive?

tomrod 3y ago

I think it's actually a reasonable argument when the only equilibrium is MAD.

indymike 3y ago

> Military applications are a small subset Military applications are a tiny subset of evil that can be done with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. So much of the global economy is based on IP, and AI appears to be good at appropriating it and shoveling out near infringements at a breathtaking scale. Ironically, AI can paraphrase a book about patent law in a few minutes... and never really understand a word it wrote. At the moment AI may be an extistential threat to IP based economies... which is certaintly as much of a national security threat as protecting the water supply. > "If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a good argument. This is a good argument if the cow was still in the barn. At this moment, we're all passengers trying to figure out where all of this is going. It's change, and it's easy to be afraid of it. I suspect, though, just like all changes in the past AI could just make life better. Maybe.

ghaff 3y ago

There are a number of largely disjoint issues/questions. - AI may be literally dangerous technology (i.e. Skynet) - AI may cause mass unemployment - AI may not be dangerous but it's a critical technology for national security (We can't afford an AI gap.) - Generative AI may be violating copyright (which is really just a government policy question)