4 ms·

> These kinds of technologies, like AI models, are fundamentally “dual use”. The general purpose computation capabilities of AI models, like these other technol

> These kinds of technologies, like AI models, are fundamentally “dual use”. The general purpose computation capabilities of AI models, like these other technologies, is not amenable to control. I find that entire section to be misleading or even false. Comparing a N-billion or even trillion parameter model representing aggregated human knowledge and some (however limited) agentness when put in a harness like autogpt makes it a different category than a pen and paper. Additionally it is not true that models are just has hard to control as a piece of paper. If millions of dollars are invested in each training run, the reseachers and the associated infrastructure then this clearly is not a simple piece of paper. It's more like sat tech covered by ITAR or semiconductor tech which is also export-restricted.

tgv 2y ago
It is pretty hard to build anything that can compete with decent LLMs, so indeed. The section you quote is the only argument in favor of allowing release of LLMs, and it rests on the assumption that LLMs will be like "all these technologies have been, on net, highly beneficial to society." This is a purely hypothetical extrapolation from cherry-picked examples. It is intellectually dishonest. Releasing the actual models without deploying them (in terms of the article) still allows bad actors to generate large amounts of spam and disinformation, to mimic voices and generate revenge porn, to mention but a few risks. And the author had better not reply that that's FUD: > A restriction on Californian AI would mean that Americans would have to increasingly rely on Chinese software if they wanted full access to models.
- jph00 2y ago
  If someone is generating spam and disinformation, or mimicking voices and generating revenge porn, it is a deployment under the definition of 'deploy' in the article. So under the proposal there, this would be regulated.
  - tgv 2y ago
    But you can't deploy it if it hasn't been released. If the regulator allows a release, someone can deploy it outside the jurisdiction. The internet doesn't end there. It's pointless. Worse, it's deceit.

tgv 2y ago

It is pretty hard to build anything that can compete with decent LLMs, so indeed. The section you quote is the only argument in favor of allowing release of LLMs, and it rests on the assumption that LLMs will be like "all these technologies have been, on net, highly beneficial to society." This is a purely hypothetical extrapolation from cherry-picked examples. It is intellectually dishonest. Releasing the actual models without deploying them (in terms of the article) still allows bad actors to generate large amounts of spam and disinformation, to mimic voices and generate revenge porn, to mention but a few risks. And the author had better not reply that that's FUD: > A restriction on Californian AI would mean that Americans would have to increasingly rely on Chinese software if they wanted full access to models.

jph00 2y ago
If someone is generating spam and disinformation, or mimicking voices and generating revenge porn, it is a deployment under the definition of 'deploy' in the article. So under the proposal there, this would be regulated.
- tgv 2y ago
  But you can't deploy it if it hasn't been released. If the regulator allows a release, someone can deploy it outside the jurisdiction. The internet doesn't end there. It's pointless. Worse, it's deceit.