3 ms·

Government knows that random people having the ability to use "AI" without their control and oversight reduces their ever expanding reach. As the article demons

Government knows that random people having the ability to use "AI" without their control and oversight reduces their ever expanding reach. As the article demonstrates, the groundwork is already being laid by these "think tanks" to prevent a repeat of Llama 2. We truly need an AI Stallman. FOSS AI models need to become a movement, like the push for a FOSS UNIX became in the 80s and 90s. Sadly when I wrote to Stallman on the subject he seemed disinterested/defeatist, and mostly dismissed the idea of a GPL for model weights. Looks like millennials/gen Z must become more interested in these matters ourselves, however we seem to be disinterested in politics and even more disinterested in how the devices we use daily _actually_ work than Gen X.

zulban 3y ago
If you believe in this, maybe you should be that person.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Being a stallman like figure has a lot of serious downsides. For example, I'm sure that Stallman may be "watched" quite a bit more than the average tech toucher. For those who don't watch truman show as a utopia, such a lifestyle can be very scary to live.
Xelynega 3y ago
The problem is that open source philosophy and large language models don't mix. How can you support open source licensing, while completely ignoring that licencing to construct you model? That's the biggest reason for the lack of "AI Stalman" imo, that's asking for someone that vehemently supports taking any content they can get their hands on to make the content generator irrelevant, while also supporting the idea that content distributed with open source licenses need to have their terms respected. Edit: I think what you're asking for does exist, just not in the large language model space. There are many people calling for datasets to be more ethical(e.x. not breaking licenses) and for better AI models, it's just that none of them are trying to push a different model made using the same techniques by someone else.
- cherryteastain 3y ago
  > content distributed with open source licenses need to have their terms respected I think we can begin more BSD-like. Take it, use it, do whatever you want with it even if it's commercial. > datasets to be more ethical Not what I am personally concerned with. Law is still ambiguous in this respect, no rulings have actually said (afaik) training on copyrighted content without permission is infringing. It's quite apparent at this stage that models that train on copyrighted content without approval of the content creator will always out scale those that do not. If permission becomes a prerequisite, I began to think that free-as-in-freedom LLMs will likely need to be made people who can ignore copyright either because they're really good at anonymizing themselves or they live in places that do not enforce Western copyrights (Russia, China, various Latam countries). Once copyright becomes a concern, the government gets another tool to sic its dogs on you, and copyright is a very convenient way to destroy an enterprising FOSS LLM dev's life without looking tyrannical.

zulban 3y ago

If you believe in this, maybe you should be that person.

Der_Einzige 3y ago
Being a stallman like figure has a lot of serious downsides. For example, I'm sure that Stallman may be "watched" quite a bit more than the average tech toucher. For those who don't watch truman show as a utopia, such a lifestyle can be very scary to live.

Xelynega 3y ago

The problem is that open source philosophy and large language models don't mix. How can you support open source licensing, while completely ignoring that licencing to construct you model? That's the biggest reason for the lack of "AI Stalman" imo, that's asking for someone that vehemently supports taking any content they can get their hands on to make the content generator irrelevant, while also supporting the idea that content distributed with open source licenses need to have their terms respected. Edit: I think what you're asking for does exist, just not in the large language model space. There are many people calling for datasets to be more ethical(e.x. not breaking licenses) and for better AI models, it's just that none of them are trying to push a different model made using the same techniques by someone else.

cherryteastain 3y ago
> content distributed with open source licenses need to have their terms respected I think we can begin more BSD-like. Take it, use it, do whatever you want with it even if it's commercial. > datasets to be more ethical Not what I am personally concerned with. Law is still ambiguous in this respect, no rulings have actually said (afaik) training on copyrighted content without permission is infringing. It's quite apparent at this stage that models that train on copyrighted content without approval of the content creator will always out scale those that do not. If permission becomes a prerequisite, I began to think that free-as-in-freedom LLMs will likely need to be made people who can ignore copyright either because they're really good at anonymizing themselves or they live in places that do not enforce Western copyrights (Russia, China, various Latam countries). Once copyright becomes a concern, the government gets another tool to sic its dogs on you, and copyright is a very convenient way to destroy an enterprising FOSS LLM dev's life without looking tyrannical.