4 ms·

> Or did you mean the quote from last year that was That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like t

by troupo 2y ago

> Or did you mean the quote from last year that was That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" There's nothing in the law they can't comply with. > so many people have taken the worst possible interpretation of him saying "we won't break the law". People are smarter than you give them credit for. Altman is good at grandstanding about safety, regulation, oversight etc. What he lacks is delivering on that grandstanding. "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". Same goes for literally everything else. Open? In name only. Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. And so on.

ben_w 2y ago
> That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" No, that's you that is. You're choosing to see the worst possible version, and putting your words in his mouth, and then telling everyone else to ignore what he actually said and listen to you instead. > "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". "The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.”" But, apparently, you don't want to accept that he might mean what he says and say what he means. The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps? Or I perhaps I putting words into your mouth in order to demonstrate why this is annoying? :D (Or perhaps I'm still sore about the time someone did that exact thing to me, on this site, repeatedly, with regards to Palestine). > Open? In name only. Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… > Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. … and published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. (But those who know what's up about the superalignment thing… are all (paraphrased) like "it's days like this I wish I wasn't under an NDA", so that will be interesting to watch when it actually gets published and is not just wishful thinking on the basis of people making the worst-possible takes like a horror film keeping the monster off-screen). > Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. They literally said the exact opposite of that. In my quote. Which I gave you. Which you chose to interpret in the worst possible light, despite (or perhaps, given human psychology, because) I indicated how annoying this is. You know what? For all I know every evil that's been attributed to the guy is 100% true. But none of the public statements you're relying on actually demonstrate that. Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet. So far, everything is extremely straightforward and simple, it doesn't need 5D chess or mind-games or whatever, just a bunch of nerds being nerds and speaking like nerds with nerdy caveats and nerdy caution and nerdy excitement — you know, like this site.
- troupo 2y ago
  > The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the world we live in. > Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… And what? Should I remind you of their original stated goal vs. "some of the weights" and "we argue we can't release weights for more powerful models"? > published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. It's bad, so we must blindly trust "Open"AI that the work they do is correct, and proper, and... > Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet The proof, as I said, is in the pudding. That is, in the doing. There's a lot of grandstanding on a lot of issues, and very little to show for it. Oh, and a lot of weaseling out.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the world we live in. It's the world you live in. > And what Follow the ellipsis. > Should I remind you of their original stated goal vs. "some of the weights" and "we argue we can't release weights for more powerful models"? """This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a thoughtful way in certain research areas. Other disciplines such as biotechnology and cybersecurity have long had active debates about responsible publication in cases with clear misuse potential, and we hope that our experiment will serve as a case study for more nuanced discussions of model and code release decisions in the AI community. We are aware that some researchers have the technical capacity to reproduce and open source our results. We believe our release strategy limits the initial set of organizations who may choose to do this, and gives the AI community more time to have a discussion about the implications of such systems.""" - https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/ https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/ So again, you're putting words into their mouths, not taking them at face value. > It's bad, so we must blindly trust "Open"AI that the work they do is correct, and proper, and... And apparently either fail to spot how I was using an ellipsis, or ironically make the mistake you thought I was making. But also, in your case, not bother to read the research. > The proof, as I said, is in the pudding. That is, in the doing. There's a lot of grandstanding on a lot of issues, and very little to show for it. Oh, and a lot of weaseling out. You sure you're not looking in the mirror when you see grandstanding?

by troupo 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

> That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law" No, that's you that is. You're choosing to see the worst possible version, and putting your words in his mouth, and then telling everyone else to ignore what he actually said and listen to you instead. > "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law". "The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.”" But, apparently, you don't want to accept that he might mean what he says and say what he means. The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps? Or I perhaps I putting words into your mouth in order to demonstrate why this is annoying? :D (Or perhaps I'm still sore about the time someone did that exact thing to me, on this site, repeatedly, with regards to Palestine). > Open? In name only. Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… > Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though. … and published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. (But those who know what's up about the superalignment thing… are all (paraphrased) like "it's days like this I wish I wasn't under an NDA", so that will be interesting to watch when it actually gets published and is not just wishful thinking on the basis of people making the worst-possible takes like a horror film keeping the monster off-screen). > Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply. They literally said the exact opposite of that. In my quote. Which I gave you. Which you chose to interpret in the worst possible light, despite (or perhaps, given human psychology, because) I indicated how annoying this is. You know what? For all I know every evil that's been attributed to the guy is 100% true. But none of the public statements you're relying on actually demonstrate that. Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet. So far, everything is extremely straightforward and simple, it doesn't need 5D chess or mind-games or whatever, just a bunch of nerds being nerds and speaking like nerds with nerdy caveats and nerdy caution and nerdy excitement — you know, like this site.

troupo 2y ago
> The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the world we live in. > Published research, published weights for some of their models, and… And what? Should I remind you of their original stated goal vs. "some of the weights" and "we argue we can't release weights for more powerful models"? > published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models. It's bad, so we must blindly trust "Open"AI that the work they do is correct, and proper, and... > Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet The proof, as I said, is in the pudding. That is, in the doing. There's a lot of grandstanding on a lot of issues, and very little to show for it. Oh, and a lot of weaseling out.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the world we live in. It's the world you live in. > And what Follow the ellipsis. > Should I remind you of their original stated goal vs. "some of the weights" and "we argue we can't release weights for more powerful models"? """This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a thoughtful way in certain research areas. Other disciplines such as biotechnology and cybersecurity have long had active debates about responsible publication in cases with clear misuse potential, and we hope that our experiment will serve as a case study for more nuanced discussions of model and code release decisions in the AI community. We are aware that some researchers have the technical capacity to reproduce and open source our results. We believe our release strategy limits the initial set of organizations who may choose to do this, and gives the AI community more time to have a discussion about the implications of such systems.""" - https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/ https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/ So again, you're putting words into their mouths, not taking them at face value. > It's bad, so we must blindly trust "Open"AI that the work they do is correct, and proper, and... And apparently either fail to spot how I was using an ellipsis, or ironically make the mistake you thought I was making. But also, in your case, not bother to read the research. > The proof, as I said, is in the pudding. That is, in the doing. There's a lot of grandstanding on a lot of issues, and very little to show for it. Oh, and a lot of weaseling out. You sure you're not looking in the mirror when you see grandstanding?