4 ms·
It works both ways with open models where _defence_ also advances in hands of majority. With closed models and research only well funded entities participate (
by mirekrusin 3y ago
It works both ways with open models where _defence_ also advances in hands of majority.
With closed models and research only well funded entities participate (state actors and large corps).
If you want to draw parallels with advanced weapons, the difference is that weapon is also an antidote to itself.
- FeepingCreature 3y agoI don't think open models offer any defence advantage whatsoever. Compare nukes. You can't stop a bad nuke with a good nuke. If I give you a nuke, the probability that you get nuked only goes up. Afaict, nobody has even offered any explanation how open weights do anything to defend you from bad actors with LLMs.
- mirekrusin 3y agoCompare potatoes. You can stop potateo with potateo.
- CamperBob2 3y agoYou can't stop a bad nuke with a good nuke. So far, that's exactly what we've done. MAD works. Ask the Ukrainians -- or what's left of them -- what happens when you voluntarily disarm.
- injidup 3y agoAlmost free availability of weapons in the USA is a case in point that this assumption is not true. There maybe good reasons to have open models but pretending that systems that allow an individual to project power beyond their immediate vicinity is harmless is naive. An individual with a weapon can almost always cause carnage at a level greater than their own with before any first responder can deal with it. Be that a viral video of someone faked to be blaspheming or somebody with a weapon in a school. Once the shooting starts it takes phenomenal energy to put the problem back in the box.
- mirekrusin 3y agoIt's neverending comedy with people equating autocomplete tool with nuclear bombs, mass shootings etc.