4 ms·
Geoffrey Hinton: Open sourcing AI models akin to open sourcing nuclear weapons
- elzbardico 3y agoThis people vastly and ridiculously over-estimate the capabilities of LLM. LLMs capabilities are deceptively impressive, and while very useful tools, probably they are the peak of their potential and unless augmented by something else, will plateau in the not so far future. Besides that, it is not like building LLMs is a new manhattan project which a small cadre of very few selected scientists able to do it. If anything, the biggest constraint for any one building a state of art LLM is access to massive quantitities of hardware and training material. The level of hype about LLMs is becoming frankly ridiculous.
- singularity2001 3y agohis intentions are good his reasons are sound but ultimately he's probably helping the wrong people
- rsynnott 3y agoI mean, by the same token: > In 2017, he co-founded and became the chief scientific advisor of the Vector Institute in Toronto > The Vector Institute is a private, non-profit artificial intelligence research institute in Toronto focusing primarily on machine learning and deep learning research. If a random Canadian non-profit was developing nuclear weapons, I think, er, something would probably have to be done about that, too.
- cranberryturkey 3y agoehhhhh....fuck it...let's see what happens...
- cassianoleal 3y agoSo does he think large, private, for-profit companies should be in charge of nuclear weapons as well?
- kian 3y agoperhaps he's suggesting that they seize the software, weights, and training data from every company who's engaged in this? Or maybe he's just trying to protect profits and doesn't mean a word of it...
- kevindamm 3y agoLarge, private, for-profit companies were in charge of Uranium mining and refinement.
- cassianoleal 3y agoSure but not the operation of the bombs.
- kevindamm 3y agoI think in this analogy that's the people using LLMs, right? I'm not proposing more regulation of AI but pointing out that a comparison to nuclear warheads is not so cut and dry.
- cassianoleal 3y agoThe OP made that comparison. My comment had the intention of illustrating how bad an analogy that was. Maybe I missed the mark! :)
- janice1999 3y agoAnd they are heavily regulated. It's not like they can do whatever they want or sell to who ever they wanted.
- derbOac 3y agoSelf-serving, manipulative, false, and offensive.
- mnk47 3y agoCan you elaborate on why this is self-serving and manipulative? I disagree with him on this, but I think he's being honest. He left his cushy job at Google Brain due to ethical concerns.
- armchairhacker 3y agoI have to say it. "You wouldn't download a nuke..."
- cgearhart 3y agoIt’s silly, but actually not an terrible analogy because nuclear weapons aren’t really that complicated as a technology — there’s even somewhat famous caselaw established when a magazine attempted to publish the basics. [1] While it’s not terribly technologically complicated, it is very complex—to the point that it’s only feasible for nation-state level actors. It requires huge investments over lengthy time to develop nuclear weapons…kinda like AI models. (The analogy breaks down at this point because there’s a huge difference in scale—AI costs millions; nuclear weapons cost billions.) [1] https://progressive.org/magazine/november-1979-issue/ https://progressive.org/magazine/november-1979-issue/
- empbaviar 3y agoI'm pretty sure nuclear bombs are open source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips