5 ms·

It's difficult to tell if you are for or against access to open weight models as a general rule, so I am curious to hear your opinion on this. Personally, I th

It's difficult to tell if you are for or against access to open weight models as a general rule, so I am curious to hear your opinion on this. Personally, I think we will one day come to see access to open weight models as an inalienable right to defense against tyranny, the way the second amendment is framed today. Just as encryption has become, which we similarly had to fight for in the 90s. I also understand that some regulation is sensible, but that doesn't automatically mean mandatory restricted or supervised access; any such restriction has to be extremely well-justified as essential for protecting the liberty of the people. And as far as supervised access, whether or not identification is "handled by a third party" or "data is deleted after verification is complete" is immaterial; a citizen must not be required to trust their government. Any trust can and will be abused given enough time. Our systems must be trustless, and any expansion of government must be matched by an expansion in citizens' ability to check said government, in order to stand the test of time. So supervised access seems completely off the table. And this can't just stop at access to models. Because linguistic analysis is a thing, and LLMs are scarily good at it (and existing non-AI solutions are still quite good given enough data), even the possibility that a government or other entity can save your messages means you've opened yourself up to deanonymization and surveillance. The chilling effect this has is undeniable, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that we cannot authorize government policy which creates chilling effects against essential liberties. Not to mention the possibilities that each category of users may be served subtly different models designed to influence them or constrain their agency/capability. We're left with a situation where distributed access to capable open models is the only defense against a government or NGO which has access to billions of dollars of surveillance infrastructure and compute.

TFNA 2mo ago
"I think we will one day come to see access to open weight models as an inalienable right to defense against tyranny." I don't think this kind of rhetoric about individual civil liberties is realistic any more when the next centuries belong to China, and even countries with a liberal democratic tradition are converging towards the Chinese model.
- soulofmischief 2mo ago
  The thing about inalienable rights is that they are not rhetoric, they are an intrinsic recognition of rights that do not require the recognition of authority: Governments which do not respect these human rights should not be modified; not the other way around. China is an authoritarian government and its policies have no more bearing on what people settle for than the currently socially unacceptable regime in the US. In my opinion, if one lacks the motivation or resolve to fight for these rights, they should do so quietly and not attempt to patronize others who still stand by these rights as not being "realistic".
- derektank 2mo ago
  >even countries with a liberal democratic tradition are converging towards the Chinese model What specific examples of this do you have in mind? I can’t think of any liberal democratic countries converging on a combination of (a) single party rule, (b) nearly universal intrusion of state or party actors into private sector entities, (c) financial repression of private investments, and (d) the associated suppression of domestic consumption.
  - TFNA 2mo ago
    I meant more generally: many countries are recognizing, just like China has, that the fundamental challenge of our modern era is ensuring social harmony. The OP's belief in individual civil liberties as a good in themselves is anachronistic now.
- somenameforme 2mo ago
  The reason the China model is working in China is because their economy is booming. As soon as it slows down, which it will, they're going to be in for chaos. This is also very historically precedented, where China has always gone through dynastic cycles of flourish, stagnate, decline, chaos, reset. China isn't doing well because of their model, they're doing well because of their economy. Their success is in spite of their governmental model, except in as much as having a dictatorship that can, for example, meaningfully deter corporate malfeasance, or do other such things that can help contribute to their economic growth. That part other countries could certainly take a thing or two from - instead, they just seem to want the censorship and surveillance.
CMay 2mo ago
Since you asked my opinion, I will say that it is nuanced and have thought a lot about these topics. People need to have the power to influence their government and the government largely needs to operate in the interest of the people. It doesn't have to do what the people want, but I think governance needs to understand what the people want and interpret how best to address it. Kind of like how developers think of what users want. The right to bear arms is critical. That is a form of power and self defense which can save your life, your neighbors life, or millions of lives from some kind of tyranny. The governmental structure of the US is so good, there is no comparison anywhere else in the world and we're not even remotely close to some sort of totalitarianism like China has. At the same time, we do have surveillance capitalism accelerating and privacy is a form of power too. Even though I dislike it, in the current moment we're in I feel like it is unavoidable. When the threats against the state increase (whether the power of the people, or otherwise), the defenses increase too. I think most people who gravitated to HN understand the risk of threats leading to safety solutions that kill freedom and privacy a little more each time. Iran built out a huge camera surveillance network to track their people, then Israel hacked it and used it to track them back. Surveillance capitalism is a double edged sword. You catch some types of crime, terrorism, whatever. That is great. At the same time, it opens up a huge vulnerability allowing the destruction of your whole state. So then what about open weight models? People really do not understand the enormous scale of the threat. We do not let regular civilians run around with nuclear bombs or develop biological weapons or any number of things. It's not that the people want them and the government doesn't let us, it's that basically universally people do not want any other people to have that power either. AI is like... mass manufacturing someone smarter than the smartest human that ever lived and allowing an infantile 16 year old with raging hormones to send a swarm of them off to cause chaos like some kind of necromancer. There are things these models know how to do that the citizens of any given country should want to largely be kept in responsible hands. This is actually a double sided issue too, because you don't simply give everyone infinite power so they can defend against tyranny. If you've ever seen ideological activists, then you know people can be tyrannical too. Silencing you, cancelling you, ending your career, livelihood, disturbing the peace and so on. The government isn't the only threat. If the potential power of AI causes too much chaos, then the government has little choice but to crack down on society in more ways and AI can be the very thing that caused what you wanted to avoid. I think open weight models are great, up to a point. People should own a gun for self defense and a car to get where they need to go. It's great to be able to ask private health questions to an open weight model in an era where everything you tell your doctors goes into some online database to be stolen by China. AI can help people be better at the essential things and fill in gaps where they're lacking. There are measurable points though, where models are just force multipliers beyond any reasonable norm for problematic types of tasks. We don't need nukes. I don't need a carrier group and spy satellites. The people who control those swore to defend the constitution, which defends the people. Some people disagree that AI can ever be good enough that these scale of threats are even comparable. It's ok, they're just actually wrong in a fully logical, serious and non-rhetorical sense. The problem is that with open weight models you only have to be wrong once. That floppy someone copied in the 1990s is still floating around somewhere. In that sense it may be inevitable, but if we allow ourselves a head start then perhaps we can manage it better in the future when we're more ready. There are a couple current mitigating factors, for now. One is that a lot of safety training and filtering is occurring, so even if some companies distill from the big companies they are getting filtered results. Another is that any model big enough to be dangerous is hard enough to run that the threat can't easily scale up in a residential or private company scenario. None of this is going to help us from countries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and so on using powerful models to crack down on their people while accelerating chaos around the world if they choose. So long as countries have nukes and can maintain ways of accurately measuring interference, there will be red lines we tell each other not to cross.

TFNA 2mo ago

"I think we will one day come to see access to open weight models as an inalienable right to defense against tyranny." I don't think this kind of rhetoric about individual civil liberties is realistic any more when the next centuries belong to China, and even countries with a liberal democratic tradition are converging towards the Chinese model.

soulofmischief 2mo ago
The thing about inalienable rights is that they are not rhetoric, they are an intrinsic recognition of rights that do not require the recognition of authority: Governments which do not respect these human rights should not be modified; not the other way around. China is an authoritarian government and its policies have no more bearing on what people settle for than the currently socially unacceptable regime in the US. In my opinion, if one lacks the motivation or resolve to fight for these rights, they should do so quietly and not attempt to patronize others who still stand by these rights as not being "realistic".
derektank 2mo ago
>even countries with a liberal democratic tradition are converging towards the Chinese model What specific examples of this do you have in mind? I can’t think of any liberal democratic countries converging on a combination of (a) single party rule, (b) nearly universal intrusion of state or party actors into private sector entities, (c) financial repression of private investments, and (d) the associated suppression of domestic consumption.
- TFNA 2mo ago
  I meant more generally: many countries are recognizing, just like China has, that the fundamental challenge of our modern era is ensuring social harmony. The OP's belief in individual civil liberties as a good in themselves is anachronistic now.
somenameforme 2mo ago
The reason the China model is working in China is because their economy is booming. As soon as it slows down, which it will, they're going to be in for chaos. This is also very historically precedented, where China has always gone through dynastic cycles of flourish, stagnate, decline, chaos, reset. China isn't doing well because of their model, they're doing well because of their economy. Their success is in spite of their governmental model, except in as much as having a dictatorship that can, for example, meaningfully deter corporate malfeasance, or do other such things that can help contribute to their economic growth. That part other countries could certainly take a thing or two from - instead, they just seem to want the censorship and surveillance.

CMay 2mo ago

Since you asked my opinion, I will say that it is nuanced and have thought a lot about these topics. People need to have the power to influence their government and the government largely needs to operate in the interest of the people. It doesn't have to do what the people want, but I think governance needs to understand what the people want and interpret how best to address it. Kind of like how developers think of what users want. The right to bear arms is critical. That is a form of power and self defense which can save your life, your neighbors life, or millions of lives from some kind of tyranny. The governmental structure of the US is so good, there is no comparison anywhere else in the world and we're not even remotely close to some sort of totalitarianism like China has. At the same time, we do have surveillance capitalism accelerating and privacy is a form of power too. Even though I dislike it, in the current moment we're in I feel like it is unavoidable. When the threats against the state increase (whether the power of the people, or otherwise), the defenses increase too. I think most people who gravitated to HN understand the risk of threats leading to safety solutions that kill freedom and privacy a little more each time. Iran built out a huge camera surveillance network to track their people, then Israel hacked it and used it to track them back. Surveillance capitalism is a double edged sword. You catch some types of crime, terrorism, whatever. That is great. At the same time, it opens up a huge vulnerability allowing the destruction of your whole state. So then what about open weight models? People really do not understand the enormous scale of the threat. We do not let regular civilians run around with nuclear bombs or develop biological weapons or any number of things. It's not that the people want them and the government doesn't let us, it's that basically universally people do not want any other people to have that power either. AI is like... mass manufacturing someone smarter than the smartest human that ever lived and allowing an infantile 16 year old with raging hormones to send a swarm of them off to cause chaos like some kind of necromancer. There are things these models know how to do that the citizens of any given country should want to largely be kept in responsible hands. This is actually a double sided issue too, because you don't simply give everyone infinite power so they can defend against tyranny. If you've ever seen ideological activists, then you know people can be tyrannical too. Silencing you, cancelling you, ending your career, livelihood, disturbing the peace and so on. The government isn't the only threat. If the potential power of AI causes too much chaos, then the government has little choice but to crack down on society in more ways and AI can be the very thing that caused what you wanted to avoid. I think open weight models are great, up to a point. People should own a gun for self defense and a car to get where they need to go. It's great to be able to ask private health questions to an open weight model in an era where everything you tell your doctors goes into some online database to be stolen by China. AI can help people be better at the essential things and fill in gaps where they're lacking. There are measurable points though, where models are just force multipliers beyond any reasonable norm for problematic types of tasks. We don't need nukes. I don't need a carrier group and spy satellites. The people who control those swore to defend the constitution, which defends the people. Some people disagree that AI can ever be good enough that these scale of threats are even comparable. It's ok, they're just actually wrong in a fully logical, serious and non-rhetorical sense. The problem is that with open weight models you only have to be wrong once. That floppy someone copied in the 1990s is still floating around somewhere. In that sense it may be inevitable, but if we allow ourselves a head start then perhaps we can manage it better in the future when we're more ready. There are a couple current mitigating factors, for now. One is that a lot of safety training and filtering is occurring, so even if some companies distill from the big companies they are getting filtered results. Another is that any model big enough to be dangerous is hard enough to run that the threat can't easily scale up in a residential or private company scenario. None of this is going to help us from countries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and so on using powerful models to crack down on their people while accelerating chaos around the world if they choose. So long as countries have nukes and can maintain ways of accurately measuring interference, there will be red lines we tell each other not to cross.