Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

1a3orn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 405 posts

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#11

Post by mrtksn »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #5

There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. I wish I could be more eloquent on this point, but I’ve mostly just been depressed about this seeming inevitability. Hopefully it won’t be the case. But how could it be otherwise? Hundreds of thousands of people are mad at openai and midjourney for doing exactly what op…

We have infinite data, a microphone and a camera can generate huge amount of it and the public domain literature is wast. Billions of people learn like that everyday.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#13

Post by livueta »

idle_zealot wrote: post #10
sillysaurusx wrote: post #5

There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. I wish I could be more eloquent on this point, but I’ve mostly just been depressed about this seeming inevitability. Hopefully it won’t be the case. But how could it be otherwise? Hundreds of thousands of people are mad at openai and midjourney for doing exactly what op…

The advantage that open AI (not the company) has is that if using copyrighted content as training data without licensing it is found to be illegal, they can just keep doing it. There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients) that big tech cannot compete with lest they face legal consequences. Basically what I'm saying is t…

You're right that there are areas like torrenting where big tech can't really go for fear of legal consequences, but there's also the cat-and-mouse game played by IP holders against, say, torrent trackers, which leads me to think that

> open models that can use whatever data they like but must operate in the shadows without access to much compute for training

sounds pretty analogous to private trackers, where high-quality stuff is available but not in full public view. If rightsholders and big tech, abetted by states, crack down on open models I think you're right that the open source community will continue to train on liberated content, but it's not going to be as open and free-flowing as things are now. Going back to the compute problem, I can imagine analogues of private trackers where contributors, not wanting to expose themselves to whatever the law-firm letter/ISP strike analogue will be in this space, use invite-only closed networks to pool compute resources for training on encumbered content.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#14

Post by ayende »

idle_zealot wrote: post #10
sillysaurusx wrote: post #5

There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. I wish I could be more eloquent on this point, but I’ve mostly just been depressed about this seeming inevitability. Hopefully it won’t be the case. But how could it be otherwise? Hundreds of thousands of people are mad at openai and midjourney for doing exactly what op…

The advantage that open AI (not the company) has is that if using copyrighted content as training data without licensing it is found to be illegal, they can just keep doing it. There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients) that big tech cannot compete with lest they face legal consequences. Basically what I'm saying is t…

As long as the cost for training a model is in the 7+ figures, that means that any such open model is bound to be tracked to someone with deep enough pockets to sue.

Consider that you just spend a few millions on training a model on copyrighted data. Release it would reveal that, problem.

I _guess_ you can try doing training in the public, like Seti @ Home or something like that, which distributes the risk? But no idea if this is even possible in this context.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#15

Post by gdfgsdf »

tehjoker wrote: post #9

standard capitalist play to set up a moat by instilling fear

> Many AI safety orgs have tried to __criminalize__ currently-existing open-source AI

standard socialist play to use the government's hand to achieve their own objectives

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#16

Post by rootsudo »

Why would we care about these "AI Safety Orgs?"

As a developer, do I need their certification or is it like a MADD situation where we if we don't observe and diminish their appeal/growth we will get laws with draconian measures that only benefit the big players? e.g. a PAC? (Don't get me wrong, drunk driving is "bad", but for a group like MADD to exist, eh and meh.)

As of now, there is no need to really submit these these safety orgs, so as long as we don't care for their approval - who cares, right?

Or is the optics far gone now that these orgs control the conversation?

Also, fun question: with AI safety orgs now attempting to police - who really polices the police / do other orgs/countries have the same rules, safety and artificial guard rails?

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#17

Post by vlovich123 »

ayende wrote: post #14
idle_zealot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantage that open AI (not the company) has is that if using copyrighted content as training data without licensing it is found to be illegal, they can just keep doing it. There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients) that big tech cannot compete with lest they face legal consequences. Basically what I'm saying is t…

As long as the cost for training a model is in the 7+ figures, that means that any such open model is bound to be tracked to someone with deep enough pockets to sue. Consider that you just spend a few millions on training a model on copyrighted data. Release it would reveal that, problem. I _guess_ you can try doing training in the public, like Seti @ Home or something like that, which distributes the risk? But no id…

Is the training cost equally that high if you do adversarial training?

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#18

Post by shkkmo »

idle_zealot wrote: post #10
sillysaurusx wrote: post #5

There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. I wish I could be more eloquent on this point, but I’ve mostly just been depressed about this seeming inevitability. Hopefully it won’t be the case. But how could it be otherwise? Hundreds of thousands of people are mad at openai and midjourney for doing exactly what op…

The advantage that open AI (not the company) has is that if using copyrighted content as training data without licensing it is found to be illegal, they can just keep doing it. There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients) that big tech cannot compete with lest they face legal consequences. Basically what I'm saying is t…

> There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients)

The key difference is that those projects don't violate copyright themselves, but facilitate users doing so. If training without a license is infringement then projects that are doing so will struggle to host code/models publicly or access other parts of internet infrastructure.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#19

Post by pmontra »

gdfgsdf wrote: post #15
tehjoker wrote: post #9

standard capitalist play to set up a moat by instilling fear

> Many AI safety orgs have tried to __criminalize__ currently-existing open-source AI standard socialist play to use the government's hand to achieve their own objectives

Don't everybody use the government to do what they want? It's kind of the definition of government, in any country and in any political system.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#20

Post by Llamamoe »

kmeisthax wrote: post #7

AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…

The by far biggest harm to society of AI is the devalustion of human creative output and replacing real humans with cheap AI solutions funneling wealth to the rich.

Compared to that, an open source LLM telling a curious teenager how to make gunpowder is... laughable.

This entire debacle is an example of disgusting "think of the children!" doublespeak, officially about safety, but really about locking shit down under corporate control.

Post reply on HN