4 ms·
Also, more pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be all that "hard" to recreate current LLM state of the art from scratch now that the techniques are known. It's
by crooked-v 2y ago
Also, more pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be all that "hard" to recreate current LLM state of the art from scratch now that the techniques are known. It's just really expensive in terms of hardware.
- squigz 2y agoWhich is a non-issue for the US military. Not a TOS, nor cost, nor technical expertise is going to stop this sort of technology from being applied to armed forces. If anyone's upset at Meta for this, they're getting angry at the wrong people...
- pempem 2y agoI think its fair to feel like telling a snake to not act like a snake is terrible (aka the military acting like the military). the turtle doesn't have to join it. Thats an option. assuming its inevitability, that even attempting to shame meta is a waste or threatening to cut access to talent or users, means change cant happen
- squigz 2y agoI don't see why I should be mad at Meta and not the armed forces that adopt this technology inappropriately.
- haswell 2y agoWhy not both? There are a myriad of reasons to be concerned about the military adopting this kind of tech. If it's reasonable to be upset at the military, it seems equally reasonable to be upset at entities that enable the military. I don't think it's a matter of "should", but rather, if you're upset at one, it doesn't make much sense not to be upset at the other.
- squigz 2y agoBecause getting mad at one is more appropriate and getting mad at the other would be pointless. Militaries will adopt this technology, whether Meta or the big names allow it in the TOS or not. I also don't get angry at gun manufacturers for the ways their guns are used; I do however get mad at legislators and citizens who enable easier access to guns and promote gun culture.
- dumpsterdiver 2y agoWho should be upset? And about what specifically? U.S. companies supporting the U.S. military has never been a point of contention afaik.
- yunwal 2y ago“Never” is definitely an exaggeration https://djmag.com/news/sxsw-cuts-ties-us-army-and-weapons-manufacturers-after-artists-boycott https://djmag.com/news/sxsw-cuts-ties-us-army-and-weapons-ma...
- dumpsterdiver 2y agoOh right, we can’t forget about the massively popular “Squirrel Flower” movement (rolls eyes).
- yunwal 2y agoSxsw has banned the defense industry from sponsoring the festival in 2025. It’s a pretty big festival.
- dumpsterdiver 2y agoA more appropriate analogy imo would be birds cleaning bugs from large animals such hippos. The birds benefit from the deterring effect of the larger animal.
- pempem 2y agoI will take that adjustment lol.
- croes 2y agoThe old “If we don’t do it someone else will” excuse. By that logic you could excuse also drug dealing and sex trafficking. There is a difference between don’t having a chance to prevent the use and making it easy.
- impossiblefork 2y agoNo, I don't think it is really expensive in terms of hardware. It's probably only a hundred million dollars for renting computing resources. The problem rather, is that there are actually some difficulties with training very large LLMs still, and then there's data and data curation; and no one has reproduced something like O-1 (I think I know how O-1 works, but I haven't confirmed it), so I actually think it's knowledge about LLM training that is the difficulty.