3 ms·

I lol'ed at a tweet the other day; '“AI Alignment” is just a cancel culture for GPUs.' https://twitter.com/tunguz/status/1681733141508046852 https://twitter.c

I lol'ed at a tweet the other day; '“AI Alignment” is just a cancel culture for GPUs.' https://twitter.com/tunguz/status/1681733141508046852 https://twitter.com/tunguz/status/1681733141508046852 --- On a more quasi-serious note, surely no technically-modest person has a sincere idea on how to regulate LLM's or any GAN stuff et cetera for that matter. If so, does it imply there is a potentiality for a black market?

smeagull 3y ago
I got one: If you've used internet scrapes or items under copyright, then you get protection so long as you publicly publish the weights and sufficient code to run it.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Then you get the same problem those Google papers have: nobody can actually run any of that. Google and other cloud companies have produced research that goes "we bought a million GPUs and then ran this algorithm", some times even with source available, ur nobody is going to spend the millions or more to validate those results. Google may as well claim proof for the existence of God, we'll never know if there's any truth to their claims. It Microsoft or Google publishes weights and code that requires a million in hardware costs alone, that solves nothing.
  - vanattab 3y ago
    A quick Google search suggests there are about 65 million millionaires on earth so it's not nothing. Granted 1,000,000 my be to little I don't know.
- blitzar 3y ago
  I got one: If you've used internet scrapes or items under copyright, then you get to chose which hand they chop off.
  - smeagull 3y ago
    The publisher's. They're scummy rent seekers who produce nothing worthwhile.
empyrrhicist 3y ago
I'm not an economist or particularly knowledgeable about communism/socialism, but the recent writers strike and copyright arguments over generative AI really stuck out as a new example of the importance of "controlling the means of production" issue to me. It's a new way in which a new segment of labor risks losing control over that production. I don't have the answer, but it actually made me think a bit about the other kinds of automation we've seen in e.g. manufacturing, and how capital is in a unique position to reap the gains of that kind of technology.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  Except that the same technologies makes it easier for new competitors to come in. It's a trend we've already seen for the last ten years. Compare the 90s to today how much of the total time watching video media that was produced by someone with a budget less than $1000.
  - empyrrhicist 3y ago
    That's a perfect example though, since monetizing content is almost exclusively feasible due to platforms owned by capital.

smeagull 3y ago

I got one: If you've used internet scrapes or items under copyright, then you get protection so long as you publicly publish the weights and sufficient code to run it.

jeroenhd 3y ago
Then you get the same problem those Google papers have: nobody can actually run any of that. Google and other cloud companies have produced research that goes "we bought a million GPUs and then ran this algorithm", some times even with source available, ur nobody is going to spend the millions or more to validate those results. Google may as well claim proof for the existence of God, we'll never know if there's any truth to their claims. It Microsoft or Google publishes weights and code that requires a million in hardware costs alone, that solves nothing.
- vanattab 3y ago
  A quick Google search suggests there are about 65 million millionaires on earth so it's not nothing. Granted 1,000,000 my be to little I don't know.
blitzar 3y ago
I got one: If you've used internet scrapes or items under copyright, then you get to chose which hand they chop off.
- smeagull 3y ago
  The publisher's. They're scummy rent seekers who produce nothing worthwhile.

empyrrhicist 3y ago

I'm not an economist or particularly knowledgeable about communism/socialism, but the recent writers strike and copyright arguments over generative AI really stuck out as a new example of the importance of "controlling the means of production" issue to me. It's a new way in which a new segment of labor risks losing control over that production. I don't have the answer, but it actually made me think a bit about the other kinds of automation we've seen in e.g. manufacturing, and how capital is in a unique position to reap the gains of that kind of technology.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Except that the same technologies makes it easier for new competitors to come in. It's a trend we've already seen for the last ten years. Compare the 90s to today how much of the total time watching video media that was produced by someone with a budget less than $1000.
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  That's a perfect example though, since monetizing content is almost exclusively feasible due to platforms owned by capital.