5 ms·

The AI safety people seem to generally be of the opinion that open source == less safe. Ironically, it's almost like what you'd hear from MS in the 90s/2000s

by xxpor 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The AI safety people seem to generally be of the opinion that open source == less safe. They (the moderate AI risk-of-slavery-or-extermination camp, that sees safety as a critical issue but the promise of AI benefit to humanity if well-aligned as significant enough that working for aligned AI is worthwhile instead of just adopting an AI-ban and bombing non-compliant datacenters) have always been of the opinion that open source is less safe than in the hands of a benevolent dictator with AI safety in mind, which is why their best case scenario was them being the benevolent dictatory gatekeeping AI. OTOH, its quite possible that they would see having a single entity purely interest in private gain being likely to acquire a commanding lead as even a greater risk than having current SotA public (really, its hard for me to see any other possibility consistent with their public views other than seeing that threat as a reason to join the extremist Yudkowski camp in anti-AI crusade mode.)
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > which is why their best case scenario was them being the benevolent dictatory gatekeeping AI. That seems like a fool's errand, even before they accepted MS's money, with Google, Facebook, and even Amazon in play. To be an independent alternative to big corporations, I can understand. But all that went out the window with Altman, his deal with MS, and the direction he chose to take OpenAI - effectively becoming the big corporation they were suppose to fight.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > That seems like a fool's errand, even before they accepted MS's money, with Google, Facebook, and even Amazon in play. Agreed; my describing the history of public decision making by OpenAI is not the same as endorsing any of the decisions. I've never thought closed gatekeeping was going to be an effective mitigation in this space, whether by intrusive government action or a private "benevolent gatekeeper".

The AI safety people seem to generally be of the opinion that open source == less safe. Ironically, it's almost like what you'd hear from MS in the 90s/2000s

by xxpor 3y ago

The AI safety people seem to generally be of the opinion that open source == less safe. Ironically, it's almost like what you'd hear from MS in the 90s/2000s

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The AI safety people seem to generally be of the opinion that open source == less safe. They (the moderate AI risk-of-slavery-or-extermination camp, that sees safety as a critical issue but the promise of AI benefit to humanity if well-aligned as significant enough that working for aligned AI is worthwhile instead of just adopting an AI-ban and bombing non-compliant datacenters) have always been of the opinion that open source is less safe than in the hands of a benevolent dictator with AI safety in mind, which is why their best case scenario was them being the benevolent dictatory gatekeeping AI. OTOH, its quite possible that they would see having a single entity purely interest in private gain being likely to acquire a commanding lead as even a greater risk than having current SotA public (really, its hard for me to see any other possibility consistent with their public views other than seeing that threat as a reason to join the extremist Yudkowski camp in anti-AI crusade mode.)

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> which is why their best case scenario was them being the benevolent dictatory gatekeeping AI. That seems like a fool's errand, even before they accepted MS's money, with Google, Facebook, and even Amazon in play. To be an independent alternative to big corporations, I can understand. But all that went out the window with Altman, his deal with MS, and the direction he chose to take OpenAI - effectively becoming the big corporation they were suppose to fight.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > That seems like a fool's errand, even before they accepted MS's money, with Google, Facebook, and even Amazon in play. Agreed; my describing the history of public decision making by OpenAI is not the same as endorsing any of the decisions. I've never thought closed gatekeeping was going to be an effective mitigation in this space, whether by intrusive government action or a private "benevolent gatekeeper".