4 ms·

"Tools for me, but not for thee."

edanm 3y ago
When the tools are (believed to be) more dangerous than nuclear weapons, and the "thee" is potentially irresponsible and/or antagonists, then... yes? This is a valid (and moral) position.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  If so, then they shouldn’t have started down that path by refusing to open source 1.5B for a long time while citing safety concerns. It’s obvious that it never posed any kind of threat, and to date no language model has. None have even been close to threatening. The comparison to nuclear weapons has always been mistaken.
  - edanm 3y ago
    Oh I'm talking about the ideal, not what they're actually doing.
    - sillysaurusx 3y ago
      Sadly one can’t be separated from the other. I’d agree if it was true. But there’s no evidence it ever has been. One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern.
      - edanm 3y ago
        > One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern. I mean, I'm totally with them on the fear of AI safety. I'm definitely in the "we need to be very scared of AI" camp. Actually the alien thought experiment is nice - because if we credibly believed aliens would come to earth in the next 50 years, I think there's a lot of things we would/should do differently, and I think it's hard to argue that there's no credible fear of reaching AGI within 50 years. That said, I think OpenAI is still problematic, since they're effectively hastening the arrival of the thing they supposedly fear. :shrug:
- philosopher1234 3y ago
  It makes people feel mistrusted (which they are, and in general should be.) it’s a bit challenging to overcome that.
nibab 3y ago
I think the fundamental conflict here is that OpenAI was started as a counter-balance to google AI and all other future resource-rich cos that decide to pursue AI BUT at the same time they needed a socially responsible / ethical vector to piggyback off of to be able to raise money and recruit talent as a non profit. So, they cant release science that the googles of the world can use to their advantage BUT they kind of have to because that's their whole mission. The whole thing was sort of dead on arrival and Ilya's email dating to 2016 (!!!!) only amplifies that.

When the tools are (believed to be) more dangerous than nuclear weapons, and the "thee" is potentially irresponsible and/or antagonists, then... yes? This is a valid (and moral) position.

sillysaurusx 3y ago
If so, then they shouldn’t have started down that path by refusing to open source 1.5B for a long time while citing safety concerns. It’s obvious that it never posed any kind of threat, and to date no language model has. None have even been close to threatening. The comparison to nuclear weapons has always been mistaken.
- edanm 3y ago
  Oh I'm talking about the ideal, not what they're actually doing.
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    Sadly one can’t be separated from the other. I’d agree if it was true. But there’s no evidence it ever has been. One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern.
    - edanm 3y ago
      > One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern. I mean, I'm totally with them on the fear of AI safety. I'm definitely in the "we need to be very scared of AI" camp. Actually the alien thought experiment is nice - because if we credibly believed aliens would come to earth in the next 50 years, I think there's a lot of things we would/should do differently, and I think it's hard to argue that there's no credible fear of reaching AGI within 50 years. That said, I think OpenAI is still problematic, since they're effectively hastening the arrival of the thing they supposedly fear. :shrug:
philosopher1234 3y ago
It makes people feel mistrusted (which they are, and in general should be.) it’s a bit challenging to overcome that.

nibab 3y ago

I think the fundamental conflict here is that OpenAI was started as a counter-balance to google AI and all other future resource-rich cos that decide to pursue AI BUT at the same time they needed a socially responsible / ethical vector to piggyback off of to be able to raise money and recruit talent as a non profit. So, they cant release science that the googles of the world can use to their advantage BUT they kind of have to because that's their whole mission. The whole thing was sort of dead on arrival and Ilya's email dating to 2016 (!!!!) only amplifies that.