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

Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

siegelendowment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#111

Post by WarmWash »

philipov wrote: post #105
WarmWash wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the data they basically steal from everyone What's the precedent? All I see if a bunch of people who haven't loaded an ad in 20 years and have a 5TB collection of pirated movies and music suddenly decrying that LLM's doing next token prediction over a dataset is theft. You don't get to change your mind 20 years into "I'm never going to pay for anything binary" ethos ( cough look at what this post is cough ) that ha…

It would be all fine and good if they kept it non-commercial, but when you start charging money for it that's when you're stepping out of bounds. If they want to benefit from fair use, they should contribute their results back to the public domain. Getting it for free and then commercializing it is what's unethical.

>Getting it for free and then commercializing it is what's unethical.

Like all those unethical software devs taking salaries for turning stackoverflow into products? I suppose the blood still flows since now they just use LLM output?

Any way you try and slice LLM morality, you end up with "It's bad because they are not me" reasons. "When I monetize information I get for free, it's good, when they monetize information they get for free, it's bad"

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#112

Post by applicative »

pastel8739 wrote: post #60
applicative wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What country are our boys occupying now?

Are you suggesting that in fact we have not entered any new wars in recent history?

We entered a war in Iraq a quarter century ago

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#113

Post by krapp »

applicative wrote: post #112
pastel8739 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that in fact we have not entered any new wars in recent history?

We entered a war in Iraq a quarter century ago

We entered a war in Iran in February.

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#114

Post by Diogenesian »

WarmWash wrote: post #98
theplumber wrote: post #91

The private AI companies should be forced to release the models as open weights with a license (I.e no commercial use) due the high risk they present and the data they basically steal from everyone to train their models. This should be the safety push not the regulatory capture that Dario is trying.

> the data they basically steal from everyone What's the precedent? All I see if a bunch of people who haven't loaded an ad in 20 years and have a 5TB collection of pirated movies and music suddenly decrying that LLM's doing next token prediction over a dataset is theft. You don't get to change your mind 20 years into "I'm never going to pay for anything binary" ethos ( cough look at what this post is cough ) that ha…

  "Reap what you sow"
It is kind of incredible that you're not focused at all on the copyright holders, instead focusing on random tech people you had online disagreements with.

Artists and writers got screwed first by piracy, then by generative AI. They didn't sow anything. They just got reaped.

And the only thing the copyright hypocrites are "reaping" is a feeling of hypocrisy. Congrats for pointing that out. Your comment is simply myopic.

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#115

Post by [deleted] »

pembrook wrote: post #95
theplumber wrote: post #91

The private AI companies should be forced to release the models as open weights with a license (I.e no commercial use) due the high risk they present and the data they basically steal from everyone to train their models. This should be the safety push not the regulatory capture that Dario is trying.

In an earlier phase of AI I might have agreed but now the publicly available data they’ve trained on is increasingly useless for the frontier. RL/post-training is now a much bigger part of it, with that being largely proprietary and expensive work that the open source model just won’t fund.

[deleted]

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#116

Post by thatguymike »

dm319 wrote: post #92
thatguymike wrote: post #80

FOSS is the wrong analogy. Building frontier LLMs isn’t primarily an engineering discipline, it’s a scientific research program. Of course we do have basically open source research programs, including most universities and big projects like CERN. But AI grew up in universities until it transpired that sufficient capital could only be found in the private sector. It would be possible to make a decent publicly funded A…

> But AI grew up in universities until it transpired that sufficient capital could only be found in the private sector. One way of looking at it. Another is that AI research progressed within universities, but it was only until recently that the private sector saw the profit potential when combined with modern CPU/GPU technology. You could argue we're saying the same thing, but I think these angles are different. An…

I agree an academic research program wouldn’t spend billions on a datacenter, but that’s just a reason why foss AI as described in this article won’t work - because big compute is required to do anything of real relevance.

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#117

Post by jimnotgym »

krapp wrote: post #113
applicative wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We entered a war in Iraq a quarter century ago

We entered a war in Iran in February.

At least the war in Iraq had a veneer of a pretext. Trump seems to be attacking Iran because Bibi asked him to

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#118

Post by brandonJagger »

“The economists need to start charting this out, if we are in a post scarcity world, how does everyone benefit from that?, obviously its not correct for just a few people or a few companies or even a few nations to be benefiting from this technology, it has to broadly accrue the benefits to everyone, but how is that gonna be done? We really need answers now. ” -Demmis Hassabis

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#119

Post by krapp »

jimnotgym wrote: post #117
krapp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We entered a war in Iran in February.

At least the war in Iraq had a veneer of a pretext. Trump seems to be attacking Iran because Bibi asked him to

Someone must not have told Iran that Trump is the great peace president who ended all wars, united the Middle East and brought about world peace. They really need to get with the program or we'll have to win the war a few more times.

Re: Governments, companies, nonprofits should invest in free, open source AI [pdf]

#120

Post by thoughtpeddler »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #62
thoughtpeddler wrote: post #59

Ah, this from the same David Siegel who said almost 2 yrs ago (in a talk found here: https://youtu.be/0z60xUDo-NI?si=PTDe11-sn2P53qo5&t=420 ) that the AI data center buildout was premature because: > Even if the current approaches will continue to scale, this would be as if in the early days of computing, perhaps someone invented a bubble sort for sorting numbers (an n-squared algorithm), and the tech companies at th…

> AI data center buildout was premature Ask Amodei how he feels about going to spaceman bad for compute that he couldn't find anywhere else in the market.

Yes, there's a present shortage of usable frontier compute, but that doesn't establish that every proposed data center will earn a decent return, or that today’s hardware + model architecture will remain economically competitive, or more to Siegel's point, that algorithmic efficiency could not dramatically reduce compute requirements.

To borrow a real example from a prior boom, railroads were congested during the initial build-out while people simultaneously funded and built too many railroads for future demand. Likewise, Anthropic et al can be compute-starved now while the industry as a whole is overbuilding expensive, depreciating infrastructure.

Post reply on HN