There is always the option of all-out war on AI, which won't be triggered until it is "almost" or "definitely" too late, and only because all other options have failed. Maybe the aftermath won't be an exterminator or matrix type dystopia, maybe we will win by the simple resource of setting back civilization to a point where we can't produce AI hardware any longer. Of course we would need to keep our entire civilization there by sheer stubbornness (you can ask any third-world country for a recipe for eternal non-progress. Yes, ask Cuba) . But that "mild" scenario, no matter how many how lovely it might seem to people who want to experience the middle ages again, is terrifying to me. Somehow, I'm not very optimistic about our future.
Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
161–166 of 166 posts
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
aside from simulated child porn which has already been proven illegal.. i think. what exactly is the problem? If you're asking bigtech to be the morality police it's not going to work. Actually, i would love to seem them attempt this. A unified moral code for all AI globally. If they pull that off i'd ask them for a unified global religion next.
> has already been proven illegal
On the contrary. Only depictions of actual identifiable persons under the age of 18 are illegal in the U.S., according to justice.gov [0]
[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
While i don't disagree, that's missing the forest for the trees - the point is having the freedom to share models and continue to open-source. I'll argue that between stable diffusion and llama 2, there is nothing highly specific that prevents [very] large amount of people from adopting these models and specializing for them own needs. The tragedy would be if those went away.
Yeah but llama2-level AI may be insignificant in power compared to future models, which may be inaccessible to the public. Even assuming the algorithms/code are open, people at large won't be able to create working models.
Not sure at all, when you look at amount of opensource being done in regards to quantization. One of many examples: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Llama-2-7B-GGML
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China, Iran, North Korea, Iran, US, Israel, Europe aren't bad actors. Seriously? You don't think China, Iran, and North Korea are bad actors? What planet are you on?
Well depends on your point of view But I don't see China or North Korea firing nukes or even blowing up western buildings. They are limited by the threat of response. A rogue wacko in his basement can make Kim Jong Un look like Theodore Roosevelt.
We do see North Korea, Russia and Iran funding cyberattacks (e.g. major ransomware operations) and supplying weapons to various external groups. If/when we get to a stage when a wacko in his basement possessing some AI tool could be dangerous, we can expect state-level bad actors to make and deliver such tools to any wacko they'll consider likely to use against the west i.e. us.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess we're speculating that training llama2 will drop by 1000x or something, so anyone can train their own llama2 from scratch for about $2k. I don't think compute cost has dropped by 1000x since 20 years ago. Maybe by 10 to 50x. And if you add in the demand for higher quality, the cost has probably increased. Like encoding a video for streaming 20 years ago, at that standard, may have cost roughly the same as it…
What compute was available 20 years ago that would be the equivalent of an H100?
Fair point. I was thinking about compute in general. It could be that AI-specific compute cheapens more dramatically than CPU compute.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Power is already concentrated in the sense that only the wealthy can train. We should make kickstarter-type models to fund open source AI training, because it'll likely continue to cost millions to tens of millions for cutting edge models. With Llama2 we're at Meta's mercy, as it cost 20M to train. No guarantee Meta will continue to give us next-gen models. And even if it does, we're stuck with their training biases,…
> Power is already concentrated in the sense that only the wealthy can train. That situation will change as technology evolves. We'll eventually reach a point where a normal desktop PC can train AI. The wealthy will always be able to do it faster, but the gap will shrink with time. The trick is making sure that laws aren't put in place now that would restrict our ability to do that freely once the technology is there…
Normal desktop PCs are going to be neutered to subscription-based terminals that you can take home with you rather than go to a central location to access.