731–740 of 1001 posts
Open ai has had a surprisingly fast pivot from the appearance of being a scrappy open-ish company trying to build something to share and improve the world to more or less unmitigated embrace of the bad sides of big corporate. This is so unbelievably blatant I almost find it hard to credit.
We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments. To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected…
And how can the government license AI? Do they have any expertise to determine who is and isn't responsible enough to handle it? A better idea is to regulate around the edges: transparency about the data used to train, regulate the use of copyrighted training data and what that means for the copyright of content produced by the AI, that sort of stuff. (I think the EU is considering that, which makes sense.) But sayin…
We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments. To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected…
Exactly. Came here to say pretty much the same thing.
This is the antithesis of what we need. As AI develops, it's imperative that AI be something that is open and available to everyone, so all of humanity can benefit from it. The extent to which technology tends to exacerbate concentration of power is bad enough as it is - the last thing we need is more regulation intended to make that effect even stronger.
We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments. To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected…
And here we are - Sam trying to lock down his first mover advantage with the boot heel of the state for profit. It's fucking disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you mean US by 'we', it is problematic because AI inventions are happening all over the globe, much more outside US than inside.
Name one significant progress in the field of LLMs that happened outside the US. Basically all the scientific papers came from Stanford, CMU, and other US universities. And the major players in the field are all American companies (OpenAI + Microsoft, Google, AnthropicAI, etc.)
Objection (1). He said "AI" many times but gave not even a start on a definition. So, how much and what new technology is he talking about.
Objection (2) The committee mentioned trusting the AI results. In my opinion, that is just silly because the AI results have no credibility before passing some severe checks. Then any trust is not from any credibility of the AI but from passing the checks.
We already have math and physical science and means for checking the results. The results, checked with the means, are in total much more impressive, powerful, credible, and valuable than ChatGPT. Still before we take math/physical science results at all seriously, we want the results checked.
So, the same for other new technologies, ChatGPT or called AI or not, check before taking seriously.
Objection (3) We don't ask for licenses for the publication of math/physical science. Instead, we protect ourselves with the checking of the results. In my opinion, we should continue to check, for anything called AI or anything new, but don't need licenses.
We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments. To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected…
> To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. If you actually watch the entire session, Altman does address that and recommend to Congress that regulations 1) not be applied to small startups, individual researchers, or open source, and 2) that they not be done in such a way…