I'll do you one better--to negative infinity mod points and beyond! I can put a 13b parameter LLM on my phone. That makes it a bearable arm. Arms are not defined under the US Constitution, just the right of _the_people_ to keep them shall not be infringed, but it is a weapon to be sure.
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
61–70 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#62Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
Even if you're correct about the capabilities of LLMs (I don't think you are), there are still obvious dangers here. I wrote a comment recently trying to explain how even if you believe all LLMs can (and will ever) do is regurgitate their training data that you should still be concerned. For example, imagine in 5 years we have GPT-7, and you ask GPT-7 to solve humanity's great problems. From its training data GPT-7 m…
People have been able to commit malicious acts by themselves historically, no AI needed.
In other words, LLMs are only as dangerous as the humans operating them, and therefore the solution is to stop crime instead of regulating AI, which only seeks to make OpenAI a monopoly.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finally, a relatable perspective. AI/ML licensing builds Power and establishes moat. This will not lead to better software. Frankly, Google and Microsoft are acting new. My understanding of both companies has been shattered by recent changes.
Did you not think they only care about money / profits ?
I expected them to recognize and assess risk.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#64While I'd agree with sentiment in this threat that GPT-4 and current AI models are not dangerous yet, I guess what I don't understand is why so many people here believe we should allow private companies to continue to develop the technology until someone develops something dangerous?
Those here who don't believe AI should be regulated, do you not believe AI can be dangerous? Is that you believe a dangerous AI is so far away that we don't need to start regulating now?
Do you accept that if someone develops a dangerous AI tomorrow there's no way to travel back in time and retroactively regulate development?
It just seems so obvious to me that there should be oversight in the development of a potentially dangerous technology that I can't understand why people would be against it. Especially for arguments as weak as "it's not dangerous yet".
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#65IMHO all of these kinds of blatant lobbying/regulatory capture proposals should be resolved using a kind of Dionisian method.
'Who is your most feared competition? OK, They will define the license requirements. Still want to go ahead?'
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% this, I don't get how even on this website people are so clueless. Give them a semi human sounding puppet and they think skynet is coming tomorrow. If we learned anything from the past few months is how gullible people are, wishful thinking is a hell of a drug
I’m open minded about this, I see people more knowledgeable than me on both sides of the argument. Can someone explain how Geoffrey Hinton can be considered to be clueless?
Not clueless. However, is he an expert in socio-political-economic issues arising from AI or in non-existent AGI? Technical insight into AI might not translate into either.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% this, I don't get how even on this website people are so clueless. Give them a semi human sounding puppet and they think skynet is coming tomorrow. If we learned anything from the past few months is how gullible people are, wishful thinking is a hell of a drug
I’m open minded about this, I see people more knowledgeable than me on both sides of the argument. Can someone explain how Geoffrey Hinton can be considered to be clueless?
Hinton, in his own words, asked PaLM to explain a dad joke he had supposedly come up with and was so convinced that his clever and advanced joke would take a lifetime of experience to understand, despite PaLM perfectly articulating why the joke was funny, he quit Google and is, conveniently, still going to continue working on AI, despite the "risks." Not exactly the best example.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#68If you would like to email The Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, & the Law to express your feelings on this, here are the details:
Majority Members
Chair Richard Blumenthal (CT) brian_steele@blumenthal.senate.gov
Amy Klobuchar (MN) baz_selassie@klobuchar.senate.gov
Chris Coons (DE) anna_yelverton@coons.senate.gov
Mazie Hirono (HI) jed_dercole@hirono.senate.gov
Alex Padilla (CA) Josh_Esquivel@padilla.senate.gov
Jon Ossoff (GA) Anna_Cullen@ossoff.senate.gov
Majority Office: 202-224-2823
Minority Members
Ranking Member Josh Hawley (MO) Chris_Weihs@hawley.senate.gov
John Kennedy (LA) James_Shea@kennedy.senate.gov
Marsha Blackburn (TN) Jon_Adame@blackburn.senate.gov
Mike Lee (UT) Phil_Reboli@lee.senate.gov
John Cornyn (TX) Drew_Brandewie@cornyn.senate.gov
Minority Office: 202-224-4224
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#69This fell off the front page incredibly fast. Caught by the anti-flamewar code?
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you're correct about the capabilities of LLMs (I don't think you are), there are still obvious dangers here. I wrote a comment recently trying to explain how even if you believe all LLMs can (and will ever) do is regurgitate their training data that you should still be concerned. For example, imagine in 5 years we have GPT-7, and you ask GPT-7 to solve humanity's great problems. From its training data GPT-7 m…
People have been able to commit malicious acts by themselves historically, no AI needed. In other words, LLMs are only as dangerous as the humans operating them, and therefore the solution is to stop crime instead of regulating AI, which only seeks to make OpenAI a monopoly.
Regulation is the only tool for minimizing crime. Other mechanisms, such as police, respond to crime after-the-fact.