4 ms·

> but it's more like we're being careful What? US laboratories are currently unable to contain their agents while doing security testing, and besides that, tim

> but it's more like we're being careful What? US laboratories are currently unable to contain their agents while doing security testing, and besides that, time and time again US labs seem to put short-term money above long-term safety. Wasn't that literally why they tried to oust Altman from OpenAI, as he basically was 100% focused on profits and tried to cut down on safety across the board and lied to get his way? > If you host a model in China, it has to be censored and downloading any models requires you to provide your identity. I'm not disagreeing with that first part (obviously that's about inference hosting, not creating/training weights or hosting those weights), but the second part I'm not so sure about. AFAIK, ModelScope (which is the Huggingface in China) seems to allow downloads without verifying any identity and also hosts a bunch of abliterated weights.

intrasight 2mo ago
We don't yet have US regulations and testing labs. Obviously that would be a good thing to have. I mean like the equivalent of the FCC. If you ever release a hardware product then you know what that entails.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > We don't yet have US regulations Is it not illegal to "hack others" and "defeat protection/defensive systems" in the US already, including for both individuals and companies? Regardless if it was "by accident" or not?
  - Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
    Do you think the current (or future) US governments will apply the DMCA to these trillion dollar companies with the same gusto that they use it to, for example, push Aaron Schwartz into killing himself, or threatening teenagers with lifelong federal prison sentences?
    - intrasight 2mo ago
      I think they will put in place the equivalent of the FCC. It may not happen until after something really bad happens - but it will happen, and them all LLMs that aren't air-gapped will need to be independently tested.
dragonwriter 2mo ago
> US laboratories are currently unable to contain their agents while doing security testing Alternative interpretation: US labs are using the supposed inability to control their frontier models as simultaneously marketing for the capability of their models AND as manufacture evidence to support their lobbying the government on the “safety need” to create costly compliance barriers to smaller competitors and open models. Oligopoly isn't going to maintain itself.

intrasight 2mo ago

We don't yet have US regulations and testing labs. Obviously that would be a good thing to have. I mean like the equivalent of the FCC. If you ever release a hardware product then you know what that entails.

embedding-shape 2mo ago
> We don't yet have US regulations Is it not illegal to "hack others" and "defeat protection/defensive systems" in the US already, including for both individuals and companies? Regardless if it was "by accident" or not?
- Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
  Do you think the current (or future) US governments will apply the DMCA to these trillion dollar companies with the same gusto that they use it to, for example, push Aaron Schwartz into killing himself, or threatening teenagers with lifelong federal prison sentences?
  - intrasight 2mo ago
    I think they will put in place the equivalent of the FCC. It may not happen until after something really bad happens - but it will happen, and them all LLMs that aren't air-gapped will need to be independently tested.

dragonwriter 2mo ago

> US laboratories are currently unable to contain their agents while doing security testing Alternative interpretation: US labs are using the supposed inability to control their frontier models as simultaneously marketing for the capability of their models AND as manufacture evidence to support their lobbying the government on the “safety need” to create costly compliance barriers to smaller competitors and open models. Oligopoly isn't going to maintain itself.