Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure this is the plan, but I don't see how OpenAI will be able to damage e.g. Anthropic without equally damaging themselves.
It's not just about Anthropic & other 10-figure companies, it's about ensuring an oligopoly instead of a market with cutthroat competition.
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
751–760 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#752This is so stupid its exactly what you would expect in congress. If this was to go through, of course OpenAI and co will be the primary lobbiests to ensure they get to define the filters for such a license. Also how would you even enforce this. It's absolute nonsense and is a clear indicator that these larger companies realize there is no 'gatekeeping' these AI's, that the democratization of models has demonstrated i…
It is nonsense, yet a similar thing happened recently with texting Before Twilio et al, if you wanted to text a lot of your customers automatically, you had to pay thousands of dollars in setup and recurrent fees to rent a shortcode number But then, with Twilio et al, you don’t need a shortcode anymore The telcos told the regulators this would create endless spam, so they would regulate it themselves, and created a c…
At the same time At&T and Verizon saying oh snap let's make money on this too and still being pissed about Stir Shaken so to get ahead of it for Texting before Congress forces it on them. This way they can make money on it before it's forced.
[0] https://fortune.com/2019/02/04/t-mobiles-john-legere-promise...
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#753Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#754Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong, except in so far as that's parochial. A government-controlled… never mind artificial god, a government-controlled story teller can be devastating. I don't buy Musk's claim ChatGPT is "woke" (or even that the term is coherent enough to be tested), but I can say that each government requiring AI to locally adhere to national mythology, will create self-reinforcing cognitive blind spots, because that a…
[flagged]
Now that we've defined what woke is, I hope we can move on from this 'you can't define woke' canard I keep seeing.
Woke is no more difficult to define than any religion or ideology, except in that it deliberately pretends not to exist ("just basic decency", "just basic human rights") in order to be a more slippery target.
--
*Side note to ward off the deliberate ignorance of people who are trying to find a way to misunderstand - I've attached some notes on how words work:
1- Often, things in the world we want to talk about have many characteristics and variants.
2- Words usually have fuzzy boundaries in what they refer to.
3- Despite the above, we can and do productively refer to such things using words.
4- We can define a thing by mentioning its most prominent feature(s).
-- The above does NOT mean that the definition must encapsulate ALL features of the thing to be valid.
-- The above does NOT mean that a thing with features outside the definition is not what the word refers to.
5- Attempting to shut down discussion by deliberately misunderstanding words or how they work is a sign of an inability to make productive valid points about reality.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#755Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#756Someone update the short story where owning compilers and debuggers is illegal to include a guy being thrown in jail for doing K-means clustering.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
> regulation should focus on ensuring the safety of AIs once they are ready to be put into widespread use - this would allow companies and individuals to research new AIs freely while still ensuring that AI products are properly reviewed. While in general I share the view that _research_ should be unencumbered, but deployment should be regulated, I do take issue with your view that safety only matters once they are r…
> For example, if next month you developed a model that could produce extremely high quality video clips from text and reference images, you did a small, gated beta release with no PR, and one of your beta testers immediately uses it to make e.g. highly realistic revenge porn. You make a great point here. This is why we need as much open source and as much wide adoption as possible. Wide adoption = public education i…
Imagine if, e.g. drugs testing and manufacture was subject to no regulations. As a consumer, if you can be aware that some chemicals are very powerful and useful, but you can't be sure that any specific product has the chemicals it says it has, that it was produced in a way that ensures a consistent product, or that it was tested for safety, or what the evidence is that it's effective against a particular condition. Even if wide adoption of drugs from a range of producers occurs, does the public really understand what they're taking, and whether it's safe? Should the burden be on them to vet every medication on the market? Or is appropriate to have some regulation to ensure medications have have their active ingredients in the amounts stated, and are produced with high quality assurance, and are actually shown to be effective? Oh, no, says a pharma industry PR person. "Doing anything that limits the adoption or encourages the underground development of bioactive chemicals is a mistake. Regulating it in this way will push it underground and make it harder to track and harder for the public to understand and prepare for."
If a team of PhDs can spend weeks trying to explain "why did the model do Y in response to X?" or figure out "can we stop it from doing Z?", expecting "wide adoption" to force "public education" to be sufficient to defuse all harms such that no regulation whatsoever is necessary is ... beyond optimistic.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#758Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#759Earlier quoted context omitted.
That got a little dark at the end. Surely some other remedies short of cannibalism would suffice.
It’s a figure of speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_the_Rich
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#760Their twisted use of the term "open" is a continued disrespect to all those people who are tirelessly working in the true spirit of open source.