4 ms·

Jeremy -- thank you for sharing this on HN. And thank you also for everything else you've done for the community :-) I agree with you that one of the biggest i

by cs702 2y ago

Jeremy -- thank you for sharing this on HN. And thank you also for everything else you've done for the community :-) I agree with you that one of the biggest issues -- maybe the biggest issue -- with the proposed legislation is that it fails to differentiate between "releasing" and "deploying" a model. For example, Jamba was released by AI21, and Llama3 was released by Meta. In contrast, GPT-4o was deployed by OpenAI and the latest/largest Gemini was deployed by Google, but neither model was ever released! We don't want legislation that prevents researchers from releasing new models, because releases are critical to scientific progress. However, I'm not so sure that lack of understanding by politicians is the main driver of misguided legislation. My understanding is that politicians prefer to consider the opinion of "experts" with the most "impressive" pedigrees, like high-ranking employees of dominant tech companies, most of which don't want anyone to release models.

jph00 2y ago
Interestingly enough, in this case none of the 3 sponsoring organizations are dominant tech companies. Rather, they are well-funded AI safety orgs -- although, to be fair, these orgs generally get their money from folks that are some of the biggest investors in Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. But I do have the impression they earnestly believe they're doing the right thing. The AI safety orgs have done incredibly effective outreach at universities for years, and have as a result gotten a huge amount of traction amongst enthusiastic young people.
- cs702 2y ago
  Thank you. Like you, I also have the impression that folks at those AI safety orgs sincerely believe they're doing the right thing. But I would ask them the same questions I would ask the politicians: Which "experts" did they consult to reach their conclusions? From whom did their "talking points" come? I hope you're right that they and the politicians are willing to change course.
nobutterbetter 2y ago
[dead]

by cs702 2y ago

jph00 2y ago

Interestingly enough, in this case none of the 3 sponsoring organizations are dominant tech companies. Rather, they are well-funded AI safety orgs -- although, to be fair, these orgs generally get their money from folks that are some of the biggest investors in Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. But I do have the impression they earnestly believe they're doing the right thing. The AI safety orgs have done incredibly effective outreach at universities for years, and have as a result gotten a huge amount of traction amongst enthusiastic young people.

cs702 2y ago
Thank you. Like you, I also have the impression that folks at those AI safety orgs sincerely believe they're doing the right thing. But I would ask them the same questions I would ask the politicians: Which "experts" did they consult to reach their conclusions? From whom did their "talking points" come? I hope you're right that they and the politicians are willing to change course.

nobutterbetter 2y ago

[dead]