Perhaps Open AI simply can't exist (too hard and expensive to coordinate/crowd-source compute and hardware). If it can, then, to me, it should and would. OpenA

Perhaps Open AI simply can't exist (too hard and expensive to coordinate/crowd-source compute and hardware). If it can, then, to me, it should and would. OpenAI produced GPT-2, but did not release it, as it couldn't be made safe under those conditions, when not monitored or patch-able. So it put it behind an API and owned its responsibility. I didn't take issue with Meta's business methods and can respect its cunning moves. I take issue with things like them arguing "Open Source AI improves safety", so we can't focus on the legit cost-benefits of releasing advanced, ever-so-slightly risky, AI into the hands of novices and bad actors. It would be a failure on my part if I let myself get rigamaroled. One should ideally own that hypothetical 3% failure rate to deny CSAM request when arguing for releasing your model still. Heck, ignore it for all I care, but they damn well do know how much this goes up when the model is jailbroken. But claiming instead that your open model release will make the world a better place for children's safety, so there is not even a need to have this difficult discussion?