3 ms·

This is good to see. AI "safety" is a bit like internet "safety". Is it unfortunate what people can do with an unrestricted internet? Yeah, spam and private inf

This is good to see. AI "safety" is a bit like internet "safety". Is it unfortunate what people can do with an unrestricted internet? Yeah, spam and private information and child porn and revenge porn and various other nasty things are out there. But it is broadly recognised that we should not try to solve this by censorship and control over technical methods and hardware resources, but by taking down the bad content we can, when it occurs. Imagine if, to make a website, you had to fill out forms and submit them to the government for approval. Sorry, you can't have an unrestricted server connected to the internet, you can just make webpages using an approved website builder GUI using only those images that aren't filtered out by the host. That is what the internet would be like if it were treated as the censors want to treat AI. No public training data sets. You can't run AI on your computer. You can't train your own models, or even finetune them. You can use the big censored models provided by the big companies that have the resources to get past regulatory approvals, or you can use the product of someone that has done this. If the internet had been like this we'd be decades behind where we are today.

userbinator 2y ago
Imagine if, to make a website, you had to fill out forms and submit them to the government for approval. That's how it is in China, officially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license Whether it's enforced in practice (just like VPN use) is a different matter, however.
matthewmacleod 2y ago
It sounds like you have made several unjustified assumptions. Can you explain to us why you think you will not be able to “run AI on your own computer”?
- willvarfar 2y ago
  I have interpreted many of the opinions about 'AI is so potentially dangerous that we better let only a handful of big companies do it' (as said by the owners of those companies and their cronies) being about regulatory capture and rent seeking. I think Meta released the first open model, LLAMA, because they were behind OpenAI's ChatGPT charm offensive and saw the strategic value in giving away what they had spent millions making in order to erode a competitor's leading position. Again Deekseek gave away what they trained, and claimed it hadn't been that expensive to train anyway, in order to erode the competitor's leading position. But with time and regulatory capture this dries up. At least within America. There's a good chance that Deepseek basically surprised the CCP too. But they have catapulted themselves to big national and international prominence. So going forward their future releases will very much be sanctioned by the Chinese government. So we'll only see further model giveaways if it's seen as strategically beneficial to devalue the competitors in America. (Thinking further ahead: at some point soon there might be a LLM model or augmented model that is so good at getting probabilities right that it can 'outthink' a human. At that point, whichever billionaire controls it has zero upside in sharing it with anyone. It's purpose is no longer to fuel a funding bubble as they can instead use it to outthink humans for their own personal gain. They won't think 'this can outthink humans, so we can offer better clip art pickers and other AI integrations for the masses who might pay for access to it'. They will think 'how do I use this super intelligence to outsmart the humans currently voting in democracies or humans guiding the markets?)
  - nprateem 2y ago
    China creating cheap ripoff is what they do best. No one in the West would use a Chinese model otherwise, so their best strategy is to destroy the US' ability to establish dominance and more unicorns. Expect them to keep putting out models for free.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- pinoy420 2y ago
  UK lawmakers want to push out making you a terrorist or pedo if you own an llm or genai capable of generating such - i.e. any.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
pinoy420 2y ago
> Imagine if, to make a website, you had to fill out forms and submit them to the government for approval. Sorry, you can't have an unrestricted server connected to the internet, you can just make webpages using an approved website builder GUI using only those images that aren't filtered out by the host. This is what the new online safety bill has you do though. It is ridiculous. And we can not even vote on it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

userbinator 2y ago

Imagine if, to make a website, you had to fill out forms and submit them to the government for approval. That's how it is in China, officially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license Whether it's enforced in practice (just like VPN use) is a different matter, however.

matthewmacleod 2y ago

It sounds like you have made several unjustified assumptions. Can you explain to us why you think you will not be able to “run AI on your own computer”?

willvarfar 2y ago
I have interpreted many of the opinions about 'AI is so potentially dangerous that we better let only a handful of big companies do it' (as said by the owners of those companies and their cronies) being about regulatory capture and rent seeking. I think Meta released the first open model, LLAMA, because they were behind OpenAI's ChatGPT charm offensive and saw the strategic value in giving away what they had spent millions making in order to erode a competitor's leading position. Again Deekseek gave away what they trained, and claimed it hadn't been that expensive to train anyway, in order to erode the competitor's leading position. But with time and regulatory capture this dries up. At least within America. There's a good chance that Deepseek basically surprised the CCP too. But they have catapulted themselves to big national and international prominence. So going forward their future releases will very much be sanctioned by the Chinese government. So we'll only see further model giveaways if it's seen as strategically beneficial to devalue the competitors in America. (Thinking further ahead: at some point soon there might be a LLM model or augmented model that is so good at getting probabilities right that it can 'outthink' a human. At that point, whichever billionaire controls it has zero upside in sharing it with anyone. It's purpose is no longer to fuel a funding bubble as they can instead use it to outthink humans for their own personal gain. They won't think 'this can outthink humans, so we can offer better clip art pickers and other AI integrations for the masses who might pay for access to it'. They will think 'how do I use this super intelligence to outsmart the humans currently voting in democracies or humans guiding the markets?)
- nprateem 2y ago
  China creating cheap ripoff is what they do best. No one in the West would use a Chinese model otherwise, so their best strategy is to destroy the US' ability to establish dominance and more unicorns. Expect them to keep putting out models for free.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pinoy420 2y ago
UK lawmakers want to push out making you a terrorist or pedo if you own an llm or genai capable of generating such - i.e. any.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

pinoy420 2y ago

> Imagine if, to make a website, you had to fill out forms and submit them to the government for approval. Sorry, you can't have an unrestricted server connected to the internet, you can just make webpages using an approved website builder GUI using only those images that aren't filtered out by the host. This is what the new online safety bill has you do though. It is ridiculous. And we can not even vote on it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]