5 ms·

Sorry but this "Meta shouldn't have released the weights" BS is exactly that... bullshit. All models should be open to everyone at any time, full stop. I don't

Sorry but this "Meta shouldn't have released the weights" BS is exactly that... bullshit. All models should be open to everyone at any time, full stop. I don't want to live in some corporatist future where we plebians have no choice but to eat the table scraps of cloud services that some selfish, political bureaucrat somewhere has deemed acceptable. Because that is the direction we are heading...

kristopolous 3y ago
It's the reproduction of a class society. Some people are deemed worthy of it but most are not
- throwaway2562 3y ago
  I think that’s definitely true at any point in human history. But also, wildly insufficient as analysis or solution here. Malevolent people exist, in all classes, of all political persuasions. Morons are real, likewise. Now that a lot of the world is newly-minded to connect with each other and bond over unsourced and unsourceable text, do we want to really arm them with industrial bullshit generators? Calling this stuff ‘safety’ is irksome in the extreme, but far from completely wrong.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    I dare invoke zimbardo that behavior is a product of structure, expectations and incentive. If you treat people like morons they start behaving like them. The reason (nuerotypical) people are studying in libraries and drunk in bars isn't because their fundamental constitution changes but instead, the context does. So treat people right and they'll (mostly) reciprocate. (I'm an exception to this rule somewhere on that vast spectrum. It's a handicap I assure you)
- Tokumei-no-hito 3y ago
  [deleted]
nepthar 3y ago
While I agree with your opinion here, I find it more alarming that these researchers are mixing the reporting of empirical evidence with "just like their opinion, man". Joking aside, I think that's worrying. It immediately calls the researcher's motives into question.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  AI researchers sometimes like to sound more important than the research in question actually is.
api 3y ago
The dystopian AI scenario that's the most realistic is one where a tiny number of elites and/or governments control massively powerful superintelligent AIs and use them to basically rule the world and enslave humanity. That's precisely the scenario the AI doom crowd is pushing by advocating laws preventing anyone except governments and huge corporations from operating or researching AI. Autonomous AI going "foom" and deciding out of all the possibilities open to it as a superintelligence to go to war against humanity is incredibly unlikely compared to numerous other existential risks confronting humanity. I wouldn't quite call it impossible as that's a strong word, but it's profoundly less plausible than climate change driven collapse, nuclear war, a beyond-Carrington level solar event, or some rando doing DIY genetic engineering and making a super-disease. Yet these idiots are advocating bans on matrix multiplication when you can buy the supplies to do CRISPR genetic modification at home off Amazon.
- RIMR 3y ago
  I can churn out 20-100k images/day from Stable Diffusion on budget of $7/day, and I am training my own LoRAs on my own photography. I can run nearly any LLM on a similar budget. Self-hosted AI is here to stay, and once the technology is advanced enough, and the hardware cheap enough, people will very likely prefer their own private AI that they can trust over a big corporate AI that is inevitably going to be built to extract information out of people.
RIMR 3y ago
It's honestly so short sighted. From a corporate liability standpoint, I get that hosted services need to avoid giving out harmful information, but trying to coral that from a software perspective is going to be impossible. Pandora's box has been opened, and nobody is capable of closing it. Even if the corporate models exceed the FOSS models right now, the FOSS models we'll have even a year from now will put all of the corporate models to shame.
IshKebab 3y ago
Yes, look at the "harmful" things they get the model to do. Is anyone seriously worried about this stuff??
AJ007 3y ago
I had an actual laugh out loud when I scrolled down and noticed that they publicly published the "harmful instructions" yet concluding this was so terrible that Meta should stop publicly releasing models.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throw10920 3y ago
> Sorry but this "Meta shouldn't have released the weights" BS is exactly that... bullshit. All models should be open to everyone at any time, full stop. Any evidence for this claim?

kristopolous 3y ago

It's the reproduction of a class society. Some people are deemed worthy of it but most are not

throwaway2562 3y ago
I think that’s definitely true at any point in human history. But also, wildly insufficient as analysis or solution here. Malevolent people exist, in all classes, of all political persuasions. Morons are real, likewise. Now that a lot of the world is newly-minded to connect with each other and bond over unsourced and unsourceable text, do we want to really arm them with industrial bullshit generators? Calling this stuff ‘safety’ is irksome in the extreme, but far from completely wrong.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  I dare invoke zimbardo that behavior is a product of structure, expectations and incentive. If you treat people like morons they start behaving like them. The reason (nuerotypical) people are studying in libraries and drunk in bars isn't because their fundamental constitution changes but instead, the context does. So treat people right and they'll (mostly) reciprocate. (I'm an exception to this rule somewhere on that vast spectrum. It's a handicap I assure you)
Tokumei-no-hito 3y ago
[deleted]

nepthar 3y ago

While I agree with your opinion here, I find it more alarming that these researchers are mixing the reporting of empirical evidence with "just like their opinion, man". Joking aside, I think that's worrying. It immediately calls the researcher's motives into question.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
AI researchers sometimes like to sound more important than the research in question actually is.

api 3y ago

The dystopian AI scenario that's the most realistic is one where a tiny number of elites and/or governments control massively powerful superintelligent AIs and use them to basically rule the world and enslave humanity. That's precisely the scenario the AI doom crowd is pushing by advocating laws preventing anyone except governments and huge corporations from operating or researching AI. Autonomous AI going "foom" and deciding out of all the possibilities open to it as a superintelligence to go to war against humanity is incredibly unlikely compared to numerous other existential risks confronting humanity. I wouldn't quite call it impossible as that's a strong word, but it's profoundly less plausible than climate change driven collapse, nuclear war, a beyond-Carrington level solar event, or some rando doing DIY genetic engineering and making a super-disease. Yet these idiots are advocating bans on matrix multiplication when you can buy the supplies to do CRISPR genetic modification at home off Amazon.

RIMR 3y ago
I can churn out 20-100k images/day from Stable Diffusion on budget of $7/day, and I am training my own LoRAs on my own photography. I can run nearly any LLM on a similar budget. Self-hosted AI is here to stay, and once the technology is advanced enough, and the hardware cheap enough, people will very likely prefer their own private AI that they can trust over a big corporate AI that is inevitably going to be built to extract information out of people.

RIMR 3y ago

It's honestly so short sighted. From a corporate liability standpoint, I get that hosted services need to avoid giving out harmful information, but trying to coral that from a software perspective is going to be impossible. Pandora's box has been opened, and nobody is capable of closing it. Even if the corporate models exceed the FOSS models right now, the FOSS models we'll have even a year from now will put all of the corporate models to shame.

IshKebab 3y ago

Yes, look at the "harmful" things they get the model to do. Is anyone seriously worried about this stuff??

AJ007 3y ago

I had an actual laugh out loud when I scrolled down and noticed that they publicly published the "harmful instructions" yet concluding this was so terrible that Meta should stop publicly releasing models.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throw10920 3y ago

> Sorry but this "Meta shouldn't have released the weights" BS is exactly that... bullshit. All models should be open to everyone at any time, full stop. Any evidence for this claim?