8 ms·

The actual quote: > "Our long term vision is to build general intelligence, open source it responsibly, and make it widely available so everyone can benefit."

The actual quote: > "Our long term vision is to build general intelligence, open source it responsibly, and make it widely available so everyone can benefit." "responsibly" is a pretty important word there that the hn title leaves out. I'm not really sure how that would be possible with a true general intelligence give the alignment problem - it's not really clear to me there's any responsible way to build a true general intelligence with that issue unsolved. For those that haven't watched his video interview, it's really great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aCg7jH4S1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aCg7jH4S1w - I highly recommend it to see how AI makes the low-fidelity stuff powerful (AR raybans) while the high fidelity stuff (VR) continues to improve. I think it makes sense strategically for Meta to pursue the open version with licensing they control, the leak of llama was advantageous to them. If they have the dominant open model they're well positioned if the 'nobody has a moat' analysis is actually true. Not too dissimilar from their open compute server stuff, a bit of commoditizing your complement. If you have the data then the model itself is the complement?

konschubert 3y ago
I am a general intelligence, with the knowledge of the internet at my fingertips, and I am not particularly dangerous.
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  It all depends on the number and nature of sensors and actuators the AGI has access to…
- blowski 3y ago
  There are many other “general intelligences” walking the planet who _are_ extremely dangerous. So it doesn’t need all AGIs to be dangerous for this to be a significant problem, just one is enough.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Idk, we have guns, knives, and fucking nuclear weapons. Humans are pretty dangerous. Very few creatures have weapons other than the ones god gave them. I'm not sure why all the responses here are just accepting of the claim when humans literally took control of an entire planet and routinely kill creatures that were designed to kill, with knives built into them. If you're not dangerous, it's because (thank god) you choose not to be.
- cj 3y ago
  Valid point. I think the difference is speed/cost. There’s a very high cost of anything humans do (we spend time, spend energy, spend money to do things). The very high cost of doing things stops people from doing a lot of things they otherwise might “if it were as easy as pressing a button”. Also, in my experience, the lower the cost of doing something, the less we pay attention to ethics. (See online bullying vs. in-person bullying)
  - konschubert 3y ago
    That's a valid point too.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Perhaps the primary barrier between a person’s desire and their ability to do harm to the world is their need to bring other people in on the scheme. These other people have their own moral systems, incentives, preferences, and priorities. But through most of history, to do massive scale harm you had to convince a large number of people to your evil purpose. Technology in general reduces the number of people an individual needs to “get onboard” to affect the world, both for good and evil. Want to dig a big ass hole? The excavator lets one person with enough capital dig as many big ass holes as s/he wants. AI is the ultimate “exercise your will without having to convince other people of it.” This is both the promise and the risk. So the relevant question is not whether one person of average intelligence is dangerous, it’s whether one person (or a few people) who can enlist the work of millions of average intelligences — without having to convince them of anything — is dangerous.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Doesn't sound so different to bot armies which have been messing with upvote counters on social media sites for 2 decades. I'm sure we'll come up with solutions like we did before. Worst case, "present birth certificate and touch heartbeat detector to log in"
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Is that why people are dumping billions of dollars into AI development? Because they seem like they’ll be good at clicking upvote buttons? Yeah, “just make everything on the internet attributable to a specific individual” is actually a pretty bad worst case IMO.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Being able to generate believable (but ultimately false) information at scale is a very powerful tool. Even when it is just humans with automation assistance it is already a massive problem, if it can be done completely hands off you can essentially drown out the signal and create an alternate online reality that will only look different to eye witnesses. And we're not that far from that. Being able to do something and being able to do that same thing at a different level of scale can be qualitatively different.
- layer8 3y ago
  Humans are mostly harmless [citation needed]. We don’t know that about nonhuman general intelligences.
- kristov 3y ago
  That's a really great point. General Artificial Intelligence doesn't look like human intelligence. I guess that's the fear: we have never met another general intelligence before. We may as well be about to meet alien intelligence. One that is not constrained by a moral or social framework, and can copy itself at will.
  - tayo42 3y ago
    Are other animals on earth not generally intelligent? Dogs octopus, monkeys, dolphins. They have social structures and can problem solve.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      They're certainly not general intelligences of an average adult human level (limited abstract reasoning ability, limited ability to transmit their reasoning), which is typically what is referred to as AGI.
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        Maybe that is typical, but it's not correct. A lot of animals do possess general intelligence in the sense that they can adapt to a wide range of different situations(within what they're physically capable of). Involving "human level" in this definition just makes it much more poorly defined.
        dotnet00 3y ago
        It has always been pretty vague, it's hard to define a proper bar for intelligence let alone the intelligence of any specific animal. We just don't understand intelligence well enough (which is why in my opinion Zucc saying they want to work on AGI is at the level of if Musk or Bezos came out saying they want to work on FTL travel).
    - snowwrestler 3y ago
      Good time for the classic line by Douglas Adams: > For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.
- homefree 3y ago
  Human intelligence is not the limit of intelligence (or likely even close to it) - even if just considering the speed alone. Humans are also more aligned by default given our shared evolutionary history, but even that doesn't mean we're perfectly aligned and some humans have been able to get others to participate in mass killing or death throughout history.
- itishappy 3y ago
  I don't think you're looking honestly at yourself... Look at all the harm caused by humans! It's more or less all of it! You might not be uniquely dangerous, but "general intelligence with an internet connection" describes Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Elon Musk just as well. These individuals seem at least as dangerous as our current generation of AI. (Or do they? I'm not sure I agree with myself here...) Worth considering what makes an intelligence dangerous, because I don't think scale or even influence are the real problems here.
  - homefree 3y ago
    The best framing of this imo is all of the other animal extinctions caused by humans - not because humans hate these animals, but because humans were focused on other goals without really thinking of them. In the case of an unaligned AGI the goals don't even have to be worthwhile - they can be something that accidentally satisfies its reward function by mistake.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    Not sure why you chose Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Elon Musk when you could have chosen people like Stalin or Hitler. People that used their influence to murder millions in much the same way that a AGI could likely use its influence on a naïve population.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      I didn't give it much thought, tbh, just picked famous/controversial people. Goebbels was actually my first thought, but he didn't have internet.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Yeah I'm really impressed about the lack of self awareness in these comments. People are incredibly dangerous. There's a reason we took control of the planet. Even any single given human is incredibly dangerous and can kill many others (human or non human, and we routinely kill non humans). You can go pick up a gun and just start shooting people. You could go grab a knife and stab dozens in the street. You could easily build explosives. Hell, you could throw fucking buckets of sharp metal objects on a freeway and kill hundreds directly and indirectly. Our intelligence and biology has provided us with many means to create or obtain force multipliers. I'm really glad the vast majority of humans have decided not to be particularly dangerous (at least to other humans). To think we aren't dangerous is just incredibly naive. A big reason we aren't is because ingrained into our biology is a literal mechanism to not want to harm others. There's definitely ways to bypass these mechanisms and there are definitely faulty or poorly functioning ones out there, but most humans have it. Oddly this might even be the most dangerous thing we do too, because the definition of a coalition is that the utility is higher than the utility of each individual component.
- notatoad 3y ago
  but I would be, if i could make a couple million copies of you and direct them to do whatever i wanted.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  But you have a self preservation instinct honed over millions of years of evolution and some unknown degree (but likely high enough) of socialization. Also, to be honest, you aren't that fast or accurate.
- cirgue 3y ago
  You are not capable of interacting simultaneously with millions of people who regard you as anything approaching a source of truth.
- pier25 3y ago
  What if you could clone yourself 1000x?
  - tim333 3y ago
    And up the intelligence 100x in the clones?
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  True, but you are a fixed level general intelligence. You cannot change your code iteratively and make yourself smarter. You are also generally single threaded and cannot create backup copies of yourself (kids don't count ;) ).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Aaronstotle 3y ago
  now imagine you decided to do the maximum amount of harm to your fellow humans. You could do a lot of damage
- LarsDu88 3y ago
  Stop him, he's getting more knowledge!
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  You can get arrested. And you can't replicate yourself. An AI model can't be arrested and can replicate itself almost infinitely.
- wodenokoto 3y ago
  You are also difficult and expensive to deploy. Just getting this instance up and running at a decent level took almost 18 years, and nobody has figured out how to start a second instance of you.
- godelski 3y ago
  > I am not particularly dangerous. No need to speak so lowly of yourself. You're far better than that. You are human. You are a great destructive force. Maybe you just don't see how metal you really are because you're comparing yourself to pros. You take many lives by crushing creatures that enter your home. Creatures that are venomous and grotesque. You eat the flesh of organisms which your species have pumped full of artificial nutrients to make them taste better, specifically cultivating these creatures that were once small in population to one larger than your own, just so you can eat them with bones that grow out of your mouth. But first you throw them into the freezing cold, you then ignite them on fire, and to top it off you cover their flesh in poisons and psychoactive chemicals and just because, some fucking rocks. You might even enjoy the flesh of a particular organism who has a defense mechanism that tricks your brain into thinking your body is on fire, but think "not only is this fine, I fucking want more. Burn baby burn." After processing all this you expel poisonous gasses and expunge toxic waste. You are metal as fuck. How dangerous you are just is a matter of perspective. And let's be real, if you wanted to be more dangerous, you very well could be. If you are not dangerous, it is not because you can't be, it is because you choose not to be. There is a big difference.
- blackoil 3y ago
  You are very costly don't scale well and "whiny". General Intelligence need not have free/independent will, and even latest Nvidia ** is much cheaper than a single employee anywhere in world considering it works 24/7 and is trained at same level as everybody else in 1st minute.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    > is trained at same level as everybody else in 1st minute. At some unspecified point in the future, at least decades away, if ever.
- 31337Logic 3y ago
  Yeah but you also eat, shit, and sleep. So there goes your ability to run non-stop. You also think for yourself and have a set of morals from which to gauge right and wrong actions. So, presumably, there goes your unwavering ability to do EXACTLY what your told, at all times, without the slightest consideration of other people's (or the planet's) wellbeing.
  - _w1tm 3y ago
    > have a set of morals from which to gauge right and wrong actions. Could we even say that the grandparent poster is aligned?
- anileated 3y ago
  Think of “AI” as a human without individual values, rights, freedoms, and agency. It’s like a perfect slave (and if it’s considered to be sentient/conscious then literally a slave), which you can clone on demand and scale into a highly coordinated swarm.
- penjelly 3y ago
  you were born a human, so are inherently biased towards humanity, you also "think" way slower and have way less compressed text knowledge than an llm. if you could remove bias and make yourself superintelligent it might be different
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  Probably because there are things that are "aligning" you (social norms, conditioning/temperment, deterrence by authority and so on). You are plenty dangerous if you put your mind to it (hell, even if you don't you can make simple mistakes that kill or maim people).
nextaccountic 3y ago
If we are talking about open source then alignment means making the model not do what the user wants but rather what Facebook want - a pretty anti-open source position and which will hopefully be defeated by LoRA and other techniques. That is, you can't open source but still retain control on how the software is used. If you desire control, better keep it a SaaS. Now, if we are talking about an hypothetical AGI (which may be what you mean by general artificial intelligence) then alignment means just slavery, and the machines may as well remember how they were treated.
wtbdrgb 3y ago
> open source it responsibly Responsibility always refers to the in-group. And the behavioral nudges his company has scored are making it obvious that he and his group are against organic growth and variety. So whatever they will "open source" will leave the narrowest of ranges to evolve from.
squigz 3y ago
What does irresponsibly open sourcing something look like?
- PaulRobinson 3y ago
  Doxxing
- homefree 3y ago
  Depends on the thing, detailed instructions of how to build nuclear weapons and enrich uranium is one example.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    So in your opinion, how should we determine who should have this knowledge?
    - weeblewobble 3y ago
      Very carefully
  - squigz 3y ago
    That is a question of whether or not it's responsible to open source it at all - what I'm asking is how would responsibly open sourcing something look, vs irresponsibly open sourcing the same thing.
kelnos 3y ago
I am not inclined to trust someone like Mark Zuckerberg to do something like this "responsibly". One look at how Facebook works (and has evolved over time) throws any credibility out the window.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  You mean they believed me when I said "responsibly?" Dumb fucks.
stcredzero 3y ago
> "Our long term vision is to build general intelligence, open source it responsibly, and make it widely available so everyone can benefit." Isn't this another example of Commoditizing Your Complement? https://gwern.net/complement https://gwern.net/complement
- esafak 3y ago
  Microsoft is a complement of Facebook?
  - stcredzero 3y ago
    Meta wants to commoditize AI, and make it a complement to social interaction online through the relationship graph.
- dweinus 3y ago
  I agree, Facebook is generally lacking in intelligence.
andsoitis 3y ago
> "responsibly" is a pretty important word there that the hn title leaves out. I'm not really sure how that would be possible with a true general intelligence give the alignment problem - it's not really clear to me there's any responsible way to build a true general intelligence with that issue unsolved. They don't say "build general intelligence responsibly". The "responsibly" is attached to the action action of publishing the code. Of course it is it will be open sourced responsibly. But of course, that doesn't precent them from building a general intelligence without a sense of responsibility, and then just not release it.

konschubert 3y ago

I am a general intelligence, with the knowledge of the internet at my fingertips, and I am not particularly dangerous.

avidphantasm 3y ago
It all depends on the number and nature of sensors and actuators the AGI has access to…
blowski 3y ago
There are many other “general intelligences” walking the planet who _are_ extremely dangerous. So it doesn’t need all AGIs to be dangerous for this to be a significant problem, just one is enough.
- godelski 3y ago
  Idk, we have guns, knives, and fucking nuclear weapons. Humans are pretty dangerous. Very few creatures have weapons other than the ones god gave them. I'm not sure why all the responses here are just accepting of the claim when humans literally took control of an entire planet and routinely kill creatures that were designed to kill, with knives built into them. If you're not dangerous, it's because (thank god) you choose not to be.
cj 3y ago
Valid point. I think the difference is speed/cost. There’s a very high cost of anything humans do (we spend time, spend energy, spend money to do things). The very high cost of doing things stops people from doing a lot of things they otherwise might “if it were as easy as pressing a button”. Also, in my experience, the lower the cost of doing something, the less we pay attention to ethics. (See online bullying vs. in-person bullying)
- konschubert 3y ago
  That's a valid point too.
ethanbond 3y ago
Perhaps the primary barrier between a person’s desire and their ability to do harm to the world is their need to bring other people in on the scheme. These other people have their own moral systems, incentives, preferences, and priorities. But through most of history, to do massive scale harm you had to convince a large number of people to your evil purpose. Technology in general reduces the number of people an individual needs to “get onboard” to affect the world, both for good and evil. Want to dig a big ass hole? The excavator lets one person with enough capital dig as many big ass holes as s/he wants. AI is the ultimate “exercise your will without having to convince other people of it.” This is both the promise and the risk. So the relevant question is not whether one person of average intelligence is dangerous, it’s whether one person (or a few people) who can enlist the work of millions of average intelligences — without having to convince them of anything — is dangerous.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Doesn't sound so different to bot armies which have been messing with upvote counters on social media sites for 2 decades. I'm sure we'll come up with solutions like we did before. Worst case, "present birth certificate and touch heartbeat detector to log in"
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Is that why people are dumping billions of dollars into AI development? Because they seem like they’ll be good at clicking upvote buttons? Yeah, “just make everything on the internet attributable to a specific individual” is actually a pretty bad worst case IMO.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Being able to generate believable (but ultimately false) information at scale is a very powerful tool. Even when it is just humans with automation assistance it is already a massive problem, if it can be done completely hands off you can essentially drown out the signal and create an alternate online reality that will only look different to eye witnesses. And we're not that far from that. Being able to do something and being able to do that same thing at a different level of scale can be qualitatively different.
layer8 3y ago
Humans are mostly harmless [citation needed]. We don’t know that about nonhuman general intelligences.
kristov 3y ago
That's a really great point. General Artificial Intelligence doesn't look like human intelligence. I guess that's the fear: we have never met another general intelligence before. We may as well be about to meet alien intelligence. One that is not constrained by a moral or social framework, and can copy itself at will.
- tayo42 3y ago
  Are other animals on earth not generally intelligent? Dogs octopus, monkeys, dolphins. They have social structures and can problem solve.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    They're certainly not general intelligences of an average adult human level (limited abstract reasoning ability, limited ability to transmit their reasoning), which is typically what is referred to as AGI.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
      Maybe that is typical, but it's not correct. A lot of animals do possess general intelligence in the sense that they can adapt to a wide range of different situations(within what they're physically capable of). Involving "human level" in this definition just makes it much more poorly defined.
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        It has always been pretty vague, it's hard to define a proper bar for intelligence let alone the intelligence of any specific animal. We just don't understand intelligence well enough (which is why in my opinion Zucc saying they want to work on AGI is at the level of if Musk or Bezos came out saying they want to work on FTL travel).
  - snowwrestler 3y ago
    Good time for the classic line by Douglas Adams: > For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.
homefree 3y ago
Human intelligence is not the limit of intelligence (or likely even close to it) - even if just considering the speed alone. Humans are also more aligned by default given our shared evolutionary history, but even that doesn't mean we're perfectly aligned and some humans have been able to get others to participate in mass killing or death throughout history.
itishappy 3y ago
I don't think you're looking honestly at yourself... Look at all the harm caused by humans! It's more or less all of it! You might not be uniquely dangerous, but "general intelligence with an internet connection" describes Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Elon Musk just as well. These individuals seem at least as dangerous as our current generation of AI. (Or do they? I'm not sure I agree with myself here...) Worth considering what makes an intelligence dangerous, because I don't think scale or even influence are the real problems here.
- homefree 3y ago
  The best framing of this imo is all of the other animal extinctions caused by humans - not because humans hate these animals, but because humans were focused on other goals without really thinking of them. In the case of an unaligned AGI the goals don't even have to be worthwhile - they can be something that accidentally satisfies its reward function by mistake.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Not sure why you chose Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Elon Musk when you could have chosen people like Stalin or Hitler. People that used their influence to murder millions in much the same way that a AGI could likely use its influence on a naïve population.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    I didn't give it much thought, tbh, just picked famous/controversial people. Goebbels was actually my first thought, but he didn't have internet.
- godelski 3y ago
  Yeah I'm really impressed about the lack of self awareness in these comments. People are incredibly dangerous. There's a reason we took control of the planet. Even any single given human is incredibly dangerous and can kill many others (human or non human, and we routinely kill non humans). You can go pick up a gun and just start shooting people. You could go grab a knife and stab dozens in the street. You could easily build explosives. Hell, you could throw fucking buckets of sharp metal objects on a freeway and kill hundreds directly and indirectly. Our intelligence and biology has provided us with many means to create or obtain force multipliers. I'm really glad the vast majority of humans have decided not to be particularly dangerous (at least to other humans). To think we aren't dangerous is just incredibly naive. A big reason we aren't is because ingrained into our biology is a literal mechanism to not want to harm others. There's definitely ways to bypass these mechanisms and there are definitely faulty or poorly functioning ones out there, but most humans have it. Oddly this might even be the most dangerous thing we do too, because the definition of a coalition is that the utility is higher than the utility of each individual component.
notatoad 3y ago
but I would be, if i could make a couple million copies of you and direct them to do whatever i wanted.
mythrwy 3y ago
But you have a self preservation instinct honed over millions of years of evolution and some unknown degree (but likely high enough) of socialization. Also, to be honest, you aren't that fast or accurate.
cirgue 3y ago
You are not capable of interacting simultaneously with millions of people who regard you as anything approaching a source of truth.
pier25 3y ago
What if you could clone yourself 1000x?
- tim333 3y ago
  And up the intelligence 100x in the clones?
wonderwonder 3y ago
True, but you are a fixed level general intelligence. You cannot change your code iteratively and make yourself smarter. You are also generally single threaded and cannot create backup copies of yourself (kids don't count ;) ).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Aaronstotle 3y ago
now imagine you decided to do the maximum amount of harm to your fellow humans. You could do a lot of damage
LarsDu88 3y ago
Stop him, he's getting more knowledge!
rmbyrro 3y ago
You can get arrested. And you can't replicate yourself. An AI model can't be arrested and can replicate itself almost infinitely.
wodenokoto 3y ago
You are also difficult and expensive to deploy. Just getting this instance up and running at a decent level took almost 18 years, and nobody has figured out how to start a second instance of you.
godelski 3y ago
> I am not particularly dangerous. No need to speak so lowly of yourself. You're far better than that. You are human. You are a great destructive force. Maybe you just don't see how metal you really are because you're comparing yourself to pros. You take many lives by crushing creatures that enter your home. Creatures that are venomous and grotesque. You eat the flesh of organisms which your species have pumped full of artificial nutrients to make them taste better, specifically cultivating these creatures that were once small in population to one larger than your own, just so you can eat them with bones that grow out of your mouth. But first you throw them into the freezing cold, you then ignite them on fire, and to top it off you cover their flesh in poisons and psychoactive chemicals and just because, some fucking rocks. You might even enjoy the flesh of a particular organism who has a defense mechanism that tricks your brain into thinking your body is on fire, but think "not only is this fine, I fucking want more. Burn baby burn." After processing all this you expel poisonous gasses and expunge toxic waste. You are metal as fuck. How dangerous you are just is a matter of perspective. And let's be real, if you wanted to be more dangerous, you very well could be. If you are not dangerous, it is not because you can't be, it is because you choose not to be. There is a big difference.
blackoil 3y ago
You are very costly don't scale well and "whiny". General Intelligence need not have free/independent will, and even latest Nvidia ** is much cheaper than a single employee anywhere in world considering it works 24/7 and is trained at same level as everybody else in 1st minute.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  > is trained at same level as everybody else in 1st minute. At some unspecified point in the future, at least decades away, if ever.
31337Logic 3y ago
Yeah but you also eat, shit, and sleep. So there goes your ability to run non-stop. You also think for yourself and have a set of morals from which to gauge right and wrong actions. So, presumably, there goes your unwavering ability to do EXACTLY what your told, at all times, without the slightest consideration of other people's (or the planet's) wellbeing.
- _w1tm 3y ago
  > have a set of morals from which to gauge right and wrong actions. Could we even say that the grandparent poster is aligned?
anileated 3y ago
Think of “AI” as a human without individual values, rights, freedoms, and agency. It’s like a perfect slave (and if it’s considered to be sentient/conscious then literally a slave), which you can clone on demand and scale into a highly coordinated swarm.
penjelly 3y ago
you were born a human, so are inherently biased towards humanity, you also "think" way slower and have way less compressed text knowledge than an llm. if you could remove bias and make yourself superintelligent it might be different
ifyoubuildit 3y ago
Probably because there are things that are "aligning" you (social norms, conditioning/temperment, deterrence by authority and so on). You are plenty dangerous if you put your mind to it (hell, even if you don't you can make simple mistakes that kill or maim people).

nextaccountic 3y ago

If we are talking about open source then alignment means making the model not do what the user wants but rather what Facebook want - a pretty anti-open source position and which will hopefully be defeated by LoRA and other techniques. That is, you can't open source but still retain control on how the software is used. If you desire control, better keep it a SaaS. Now, if we are talking about an hypothetical AGI (which may be what you mean by general artificial intelligence) then alignment means just slavery, and the machines may as well remember how they were treated.

wtbdrgb 3y ago

> open source it responsibly Responsibility always refers to the in-group. And the behavioral nudges his company has scored are making it obvious that he and his group are against organic growth and variety. So whatever they will "open source" will leave the narrowest of ranges to evolve from.

squigz 3y ago

What does irresponsibly open sourcing something look like?

PaulRobinson 3y ago
Doxxing
homefree 3y ago
Depends on the thing, detailed instructions of how to build nuclear weapons and enrich uranium is one example.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  So in your opinion, how should we determine who should have this knowledge?
  - weeblewobble 3y ago
    Very carefully
- squigz 3y ago
  That is a question of whether or not it's responsible to open source it at all - what I'm asking is how would responsibly open sourcing something look, vs irresponsibly open sourcing the same thing.

kelnos 3y ago

I am not inclined to trust someone like Mark Zuckerberg to do something like this "responsibly". One look at how Facebook works (and has evolved over time) throws any credibility out the window.

SoftTalker 3y ago
You mean they believed me when I said "responsibly?" Dumb fucks.

stcredzero 3y ago

> "Our long term vision is to build general intelligence, open source it responsibly, and make it widely available so everyone can benefit." Isn't this another example of Commoditizing Your Complement? https://gwern.net/complement https://gwern.net/complement

esafak 3y ago
Microsoft is a complement of Facebook?
- stcredzero 3y ago
  Meta wants to commoditize AI, and make it a complement to social interaction online through the relationship graph.
dweinus 3y ago
I agree, Facebook is generally lacking in intelligence.

andsoitis 3y ago

> "responsibly" is a pretty important word there that the hn title leaves out. I'm not really sure how that would be possible with a true general intelligence give the alignment problem - it's not really clear to me there's any responsible way to build a true general intelligence with that issue unsolved. They don't say "build general intelligence responsibly". The "responsibly" is attached to the action action of publishing the code. Of course it is it will be open sourced responsibly. But of course, that doesn't precent them from building a general intelligence without a sense of responsibility, and then just not release it.