It seems that the signatory form collection is not keeping up - I signed this 24 hours ago and my name still isn't listed. I suspect once they add the names that are coming in through the form that this will be a much longer list.
Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
31–40 of 166 posts
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#32This is platitudinous.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#33Leaving AI to a handful of companies is in my opinion the fastest route for inequality and power concentration/centralisation, and this is in a way an AI disaster we should be worrisome. Power corrupts, great power greatly corrupts, this is not entirely new. From where I stand, it looks like the pandora box has already been opened anyway. The era of hugginface and/or Llama2 models is only going to grow from there.
> Leaving AI to a handful of companies is in my opinion the fastest route for inequality and power concentration/centralisation
Well yes, that’s precisely why they are lobbying for it.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons I mean, once the discussion goes THIS far off the rails of reality, where do we go from here?
Why not? It has already been shown that AI can be (mis)used to identify good candidates for chemical weapons. [1] Next in the pipeline is obviously some religious nut (who would not otherwise have the capability) using it to design a virus which doesn't set off alarms at the gene synthesis / custom construct companies, and then learning to transfect it. More banally, state actors can already use open source models to…
>It took what, 60,000 votes to swing the US election in 2016?
this is a conspiracy theory that gained popularity around the election but in the first impeachment hearings, those making allegations regarding foreign interference failed to produce any evidence whatsoever of a real targeted campaign in collusion with the Russian government.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not be so hasty. I m glad to see that MistralAI is signing this letter. their small model is truly amazing, the most useful open source model i ve tried so far. But this can change tomorrow, they may be deemed illegal and disappear from public view, it has happened before. So i'm downloading and saving whatever model i think is great.
Genuine question - does it seem plausible that a few GB of content could truly be wiped off the Internet? I’m not in the piracy scene, but my impression was they routinely pass full res movies around the Internet without much barrier to discovering and downloading them, at least to technically competent users. Is that still true?
[deleted]
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#36Might be just me, but I'm getting transient page load failures for the page, might be getting a "hug of death".
https://web.archive.org/web/20231102190919/https://open.mozi...
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not be so hasty. I m glad to see that MistralAI is signing this letter. their small model is truly amazing, the most useful open source model i ve tried so far. But this can change tomorrow, they may be deemed illegal and disappear from public view, it has happened before. So i'm downloading and saving whatever model i think is great.
Genuine question - does it seem plausible that a few GB of content could truly be wiped off the Internet? I’m not in the piracy scene, but my impression was they routinely pass full res movies around the Internet without much barrier to discovering and downloading them, at least to technically competent users. Is that still true?
the old models will become deprecated if they are not upgraded, and won't incorporate new information. Even if the files are available they will become abandonware.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#38Leaving AI to a handful of companies is in my opinion the fastest route for inequality and power concentration/centralisation, and this is in a way an AI disaster we should be worrisome. Power corrupts, great power greatly corrupts, this is not entirely new. From where I stand, it looks like the pandora box has already been opened anyway. The era of hugginface and/or Llama2 models is only going to grow from there.
True but there is a really difficult trade off here between a big tech monopoly and decentralised open source anarchy. I say this as a Linux-using FOSS lover, but we need to open this up as much as possible without allowing superpowers to escape into the wrong hands. I guess strong regulation is the key but I'm just handwaving here really. I don't know how the tradeoff should be made. I see great dangers in hyper-pow…
> without allowing superpowers to escape into the wrong hands
The wrong hands will have the same access to whatever "superpowers" AI gives regardless of what regulations are or are not put in place. Regulations can't and won't stop potential bad actors with state-level resources, like China, from using any technology they decide they want to use. So trying to regulate on that basis is a fool's errand.
The real question is, what will put the good actors in a better position to fight the bad actors if it ever comes to that: a big tech monopoly or decentralized open source anarchy? The answer should be obvious. No monopoly is going to out-innovate decentralized open source.
> I'm not sure how easy it will be to stop bad actors since barriers to entry are exponentially lower to developing a malicious AI tool than, say, developing a nuke.
Since some bad actors already have nukes, the answer to this should be obvious too: it's what I said above about the wrong hands getting access to technology.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#39It seems that the signatory form collection is not keeping up - I signed this 24 hours ago and my name still isn't listed. I suspect once they add the names that are coming in through the form that this will be a much longer list.
They're curating it. Look at the list - its almost entirely people who represent well known institutions.
I don't agree and wouldn't sign anyways.
Re: Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? It has already been shown that AI can be (mis)used to identify good candidates for chemical weapons. [1] Next in the pipeline is obviously some religious nut (who would not otherwise have the capability) using it to design a virus which doesn't set off alarms at the gene synthesis / custom construct companies, and then learning to transfect it. More banally, state actors can already use open source models to…
>It took what, 60,000 votes to swing the US election in 2016? this is a conspiracy theory that gained popularity around the election but in the first impeachment hearings, those making allegations regarding foreign interference failed to produce any evidence whatsoever of a real targeted campaign in collusion with the Russian government.
Eh, he's not wrong there -- our elections are subject to chaos theory at this point, more than the rule of law. Sensitive dependence on both initial conditions and invisible thresholds. The Russian "butterfly effect" in 2016 was very real. Even if it wasn't enough on its own to tip the balance in Trump's favor, they were very clear that Trump was their candidate of choice, and they very clearly took action in accordance with that. Neither of these statements is up for the slightest debate at this point.
However, the possibility of foreign election interference, real or imagined, is not a valid reason to hold back progress on AI.