51–60 of 65 posts
If the govt wants to regulate commercial AI, they can do that by going to the companies responsible for building that AI and say "do X, Y and Z or else we will punish you with A, B or C". But what do you say to a collective of developers that could be all around the globe? What stops that group from just saying "F* You" and continuing on?
Regulating open-source AI will only help giants like Google and OpenAI, stifling innovation. It creates barriers only they can afford, limiting competition and diversity. Open-source fosters transparency and rapid progress. We do not need government regulations, or we'll end up like Europe with China leading.
> It creates barriers only they can afford, limiting competition and diversity. I would argue this is inherent to the training and compute cost of all large language models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It creates barriers only they can afford, limiting competition and diversity. I would argue this is inherent to the training and compute cost of all large language models.
Quantized Llama 3.1 can run on an Amazon GPU instance for $32/hr now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? All three of those companies have an obvious and outspoken commitment to releasing models for free, they aren't trying to manipulate fear to sell a product like OpenAI.
Really makes me wonder what the angle here is for them. With open source, I can somewhat understand given market standards become easier to hire for and you get feedback on your tooling. It seems unlikely that either will be true for open-weight models. It also seems unlikely they would be able to establish market domination and then increase prices if everything remains open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? All three of those companies have an obvious and outspoken commitment to releasing models for free, they aren't trying to manipulate fear to sell a product like OpenAI.
Microsoft is invested in OpenAI. Have they released any open weight models themselves? Apple is similarly partnering with OpenAI. Google has released nerfed versions of its Gemini models (Gemma 2B and Gemma 7B). It seems the only company truly setting an example for open weights is Meta. Hopefully the other companies realize that it’s in their best interest to do the same (as it seems Google is begrudgingly realizing…
I think this is too generous of an interpretation for their deal.
Regulating open-source AI will only help giants like Google and OpenAI, stifling innovation. It creates barriers only they can afford, limiting competition and diversity. Open-source fosters transparency and rapid progress. We do not need government regulations, or we'll end up like Europe with China leading.
Would love to hear the White House explain to me what Open-Source AI is, in their own words.
This sounds sarcastic, but as is often the case the White House has quite competent people working on this who have put a lot of thought into it already: https://www.ntia.gov/federal-register-notice/2024/dual-use-f... Unfortunately it's past the deadline for you to add your own comments on this, but I'm sure there will be future RFCs if you have thoughts.
Here's a bit of help for them, development happens with our help or not. For every regulated repository that's removed, there's a mirror/fork.
I don't really have a point... just having a little fun at the expense of the latest thing in the harbor. I'll honestly stay apprised
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems pretty clear to me they're using it colloquialism for freely distributed weights.
Is that "umm ackshually .." bit really worth doing here? Open weights vs training code is not a distinction worth drawing for the average person
Perhaps I'm wrong, willing to discuss. I'm simple so my thoughts on this are also.
Weights, training code, or... CAD files that just so happen to make child-size cages. Until I'm actually caging children - buzz off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's still prohibitively expensive for anyone that doesn't intend to make their money back. For training it's even more outrageous.
$64K isn’t even one developer’s salary.