631–640 of 1001 posts
> Indeed, as the November 2023 drama was unfolding, Microsoft’s CEO boasted that it would not matter “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow.” He explained that “[w]e have all the IP rights and all the capability.” “We have the people, we have the compute, we have the data, we have everything.” “We are below them, above them, around them.” Yikes. This technology definitely needs to be open source, especially if we get to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding Mistral recent announcements, I'm not so sure anymore.
The large models can't be run by consumers, and why would a for profit company release a large model that can then be picked up by other startups?
> Indeed, as the November 2023 drama was unfolding, Microsoft’s CEO boasted that it would not matter “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow.” He explained that “[w]e have all the IP rights and all the capability.” “We have the people, we have the compute, we have the data, we have everything.” “We are below them, above them, around them.” Yikes. This technology definitely needs to be open source, especially if we get to t…
> A powerful technology is a danger to society if only a few people possess it. By giving it to everyone, you even the playing field. That's why we all have personal nukes, of course. Very safe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Works already been done for the most part. Mixtral is to GPT what Linux was to Windows. Mistral AI has been doing such a good job democratizing Microsoft's advantage that Microsoft is beginning to invest in them.
Microsoft just bought off Mistral into no longer releasing open weights and scrubbing all references to them from their site…?
Click "Learn more" under the big "Committing to open models" heading on the homepage. Then, because their deeplinking is bad, click "Open" in the toggle at the top. There's your download link.
> GPT-4 is an AGI algorithm That claim is audacious.
Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given. Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch…
Tell about a technology you think but dangerous, and I'll give you fifty way to kill someone with it.
Plastic bag for example, are not only potentially dangerous, they make a significant contribution to the current mass extinction of biodiversity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft just bought off Mistral into no longer releasing open weights and scrubbing all references to them from their site…?
There's a "Download" button for their open models literally two clicks away from the homepage. Click "Learn more" under the big "Committing to open models" heading on the homepage. Then, because their deeplinking is bad, click "Open" in the toggle at the top. There's your download link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A powerful technology is a danger to society if only a few people possess it. By giving it to everyone, you even the playing field. That's why we all have personal nukes, of course. Very safe
I shudder at a world where only corporations had nukes.
It's unfortunate that the AGI debate still hasn't made it's way very far into these parts. Still have people going, "well this would be bad too." Yes! That is the existential problem a lot of people are grappling with. There is currently and likely, no good way out of this. Too much "Don't Look Up" going on.