3 ms·

> 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

by 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?
- troupo 2y ago
  > It's the world you live in. Where have you lived for the past... well, forever? > while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need It's a lot of grandstanding about nothing, amounting to the same thing: "our only modus operandi is being as closed as possible for as long as possible" > And apparently either fail to spot how I was using an ellipsis, I can also put ellipses everywhere. You know that their "open research" is rarely reproducible? That they keep deprecating and removing the completely closed proprietary models they "open" to the public? That... Follow the ellipsis > You sure you're not looking in the mirror when you see grandstanding? --- grandstanding /ˈɡran(d)standɪŋ/ noun the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favourable attention from spectators or the media. --- No, definitely not I. There's a certain "Open" company in the AI space that does exactly that.

by troupo 2y ago

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?

troupo 2y ago
> It's the world you live in. Where have you lived for the past... well, forever? > while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need It's a lot of grandstanding about nothing, amounting to the same thing: "our only modus operandi is being as closed as possible for as long as possible" > And apparently either fail to spot how I was using an ellipsis, I can also put ellipses everywhere. You know that their "open research" is rarely reproducible? That they keep deprecating and removing the completely closed proprietary models they "open" to the public? That... Follow the ellipsis > You sure you're not looking in the mirror when you see grandstanding? --- grandstanding /ˈɡran(d)standɪŋ/ noun the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favourable attention from spectators or the media. --- No, definitely not I. There's a certain "Open" company in the AI space that does exactly that.