First you’re going to have to write some laws that prevent openwashing and legitimate open source projects from becoming proprietary.
Open source AI is the path forward
651–660 of 936 posts
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#652Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which option would be better? A) Release the data, and if it ends up causing a privacy scandal, at least you can actually call it open this time. B) Neuter the dataset, and the model All I ever see in these threads is a lot of whining and no viable alternative solutions (I’m fine with the idea of it being a hard problem, but when I see this attitude from “researchers” it makes me less optimistic about the future) > a…
This isn't a dilemma at all. If Facebook can't release data it trains on because it would compromise user privacy, it is already a significant privacy violation that should be a scandal, and if it would prompt some regulatory or legislative remedies against Facebook for them to release the data, it should do the same for releasing the trained model, even through an API. The only reason people don't think about it thi…
> If Facebook can't release data it trains on because it would compromise user privacy, it is already a significant privacy violation that should be a scandal
Thousands of entities would scramble to sue Facebook over any released dataset no matter what the privacy implications of the dataset are.
It's just not worth it in any world. I believe you are not thinking of this problem from the view of the PM or VPs that would actually have to approve this: if I were a VP and I was 99% confident that the dataset had no privacy implications, I still wouldn't release it. Just not worth the inevitable long, drawn out lawsuits from people and regulators trying to get their pound of flesh.
I feel the world is too hostile to big tech and AI to enable something like this. So, unless we want to kill AGI development in the cradle, this is what we get - and we can thank modern populist techno-pessimism for cultivating this environment.
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#653Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the dataset required for it to be open source? If I self host a project that is open sourced rather than paying for a hosted version, like Sentry.io for example, I don't expect data to come along with the code. Licensing rights are always up for debate in open source, but I wouldn't expect more than the code to be available and reviewable for anything needed to build and run the project. In the case of an LLM…
The thing they are pointing at and which is the thing people want is the output of the training engine, not the inputs. This is like someone saying they have an open source kernel, but they only release a compiler and a binary... the kernel code is never released, but the kernel is the only reason anyone even wants the compiler. (For avoidance of anyone being somehow confused: the training code is a compiler which ta…
The output of the training engine, I.E. the model itself, isn't source code at all though. The best approximation would be considering it obfuscated code, and even then it's a stretch since it is more similar to compressed data.
It sounds like Meta doesn't share source for the training logic. That would be necessary for it to really be open source, you need to be able to recreate and modify the codebase but that has nothing to do with the training data or the trained model.
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#654Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds fantastic. If they make the Meta headset easy to wear and somewhat fashionable (closer to eyeglass than to a motorcycle helmet), I'd take it everywhere and record everything. Give me a retrospective search and conferences/meetings will be so much easier (I am terrible with names).
I wouldn’t even say hi alone my name to someone wearing a Meta headset out in public. And if facial recognition becomes that common for wearers, most of the population is going to adorn something to prevent that. And if it’s at work, I’m not working there and I have to think many would agree. Coworkers don’t and wouldn’t tolerate coworkers taking videos or pictures of them.
[flagged]
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#655“The Heavy Press Program was a Cold War-era program of the United States Air Force to build the largest forging presses and extrusion presses in the world.” This ”program began in 1944 and concluded in 1957 after construction of four forging presses and six extruders, at an overall cost of $279 million. Six of them are still in operation today, manufacturing structural parts for military and commercial aircraft” [1].…
For the DoE, take a look at:
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#656Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't helpful. The community... Speak for yourself, please. The term is much older than 1998, with one easily-Googled example being https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf , and an explicit case of IT-related usage being https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png from https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC... . Unless a registered trademark is involved (spoiler: it's not) no one, wheth…
Neither of those usages relate to IT, they both are about sources of intelligence (espionage). Even if they were, the OSI definition won, nobody is using the definitions from 1995 CIA or the 1996 InfoConWar book in the realm of IT, not even Facebook. The community has the authority to complain about companies mis-labelling their pork products as vegan, even if nobody has a registered trademark on the term vegan. Woul…
Would you tell people to shut up about that case because they don't have a registered trademark?
I especially like how I'm the one telling people to "shut up" all of a sudden.
As for the rest, see my other reply.
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a dilemma at all. If Facebook can't release data it trains on because it would compromise user privacy, it is already a significant privacy violation that should be a scandal, and if it would prompt some regulatory or legislative remedies against Facebook for them to release the data, it should do the same for releasing the trained model, even through an API. The only reason people don't think about it thi…
> If Facebook can't release data it trains on because it would compromise user privacy, it is already a significant privacy violation that should be a scandal Thousands of entities would scramble to sue Facebook over any released dataset no matter what the privacy implications of the dataset are. It's just not worth it in any world. I believe you are not thinking of this problem from the view of the PM or VPs that wo…
Translation: "we train our data on private user data and copyrighted material so of course we cannot disclose any of our datasets or we'll be sued into oblivion"
There's no AGI development in the cradle. And the world isn't "hostile". The world is increasingly tired of predatory behavior by supranational corporations
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#658Earlier quoted context omitted.
It creates the opposite of a flywheel effect for you. It creates a leapfrog effect.
AI might cannabalize a lot of first gen AI businesses.
What Meta is doing is borderline market distortion. It's not that they have figured out some magic sauce they are happy to share. They are just deciding to burn brute force money that they made elsewhere and give their stuff away below cost, first of all because they can.
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing something right vs doing something that seems right but has a hidden self interest that is harmful in the long run can be vastly different things. Often this kind of strategy will allow people to let their guard down, and those same people will get steamrolled down the road, left wondering where it all went wrong. Get smarter.
How in the heck is an open source model that is free and open today going to lock me down, down the line? This is nonsense. You can literally run this model forever if you use NixOS (or never touch your windows, macos or linux install again). Zuck can't come back and molest it. Ever. The best I can tell is that their self-interest here is more about gathering mindshare. That's not a terrible motive; in fact, that's a…
> How in the heck is an open source model that is free and open today
Is free, but it's not open source
Re: Open source AI is the path forward
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t even say hi alone my name to someone wearing a Meta headset out in public. And if facial recognition becomes that common for wearers, most of the population is going to adorn something to prevent that. And if it’s at work, I’m not working there and I have to think many would agree. Coworkers don’t and wouldn’t tolerate coworkers taking videos or pictures of them.
[flagged]
> I think you dramatically overestimate the number of people that would actually care about any theoretical privacy infringement
Not really surprised that you don't see it as a problem
> This is a very antiquated view IMO. You are already being filmed and monitored at work.
Not really surprised that you don't see it as a problem