OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#2A lot of bullshit about imaginary "catastrophic risks" and justifying why they've turned into closed and for profit. I'm going to be extra mad if this influences the government to restrict others from open sourcing
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#3> a number of nation-state cyber threat actors who were abusing our GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 models to assist in cyberoffensive operations.
Not sure I buy this. Sure there was that half hearted case they blogged about. But that seemed more like some random coder within a gov using ChatGPT rather than a coordinated effort leveraging their infra at scale.
Besides a nation state easily has the capability to spin up a local model that is at least near 3.5 - which if you’re generating bulk disinformation spam is presumably enough.
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#4> a number of nation-state cyber threat actors who were abusing our GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 models to assist in cyberoffensive operations. Not sure I buy this. Sure there was that half hearted case they blogged about. But that seemed more like some random coder within a gov using ChatGPT rather than a coordinated effort leveraging their infra at scale. Besides a nation state easily has the capability to spin up a loc…
Why would you think they would voluntarily disclose this to the public ?
Companies are typically required to keep this information private.
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#5> a number of nation-state cyber threat actors who were abusing our GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 models to assist in cyberoffensive operations. Not sure I buy this. Sure there was that half hearted case they blogged about. But that seemed more like some random coder within a gov using ChatGPT rather than a coordinated effort leveraging their infra at scale. Besides a nation state easily has the capability to spin up a loc…
Why would you think they would voluntarily disclose this to the public ? Companies are typically required to keep this information private.
[deleted]
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#6My attempt at a TLDR for the piece:
• The audiences are policymakers and government agencies like NTIA, the broader AI research community, and existing and potential partners/customers.
• It attempts to justify OpenAI's approach of releasing AI models via controlled APIs/products rather than open model weights, using fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
• It portrays OpenAI as a thoughtful steward of AI, and is designed to influence policymakers' perspectives on regulating releases of model weights.
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#7(snarky) TL;DR: if people have weights available, they can bypass the dumb censorship we do, which isn't good for us. Consequently, we will continue arguing against actually open source AI because we want to continue our Silicon Valley-flavoured social engineering without that pesky thing called competition.
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#8> a number of nation-state cyber threat actors who were abusing our GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 models to assist in cyberoffensive operations. Not sure I buy this. Sure there was that half hearted case they blogged about. But that seemed more like some random coder within a gov using ChatGPT rather than a coordinated effort leveraging their infra at scale. Besides a nation state easily has the capability to spin up a loc…
Why would you think they would voluntarily disclose this to the public ? Companies are typically required to keep this information private.
I think that they are trying to scare regulators into banning truly open LLMs as too dangerous and instead trusting "responsible" people like Altman to keep things safe.
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#9This is just getting to be a wedge issue for me: this isn’t ok and it has to stop.
It’s weekly if not daily some new godawful thing comes up. I just found about the revoked “GPT Detector” thing, that was a non-ridiculous case that the real safety people have some pull, but they took it down with precision and recall numbers you don’t take it down at.
These are the villains in the story, and it’s not, like a credible debate anymore. This isn’t an honest, transparent, benevolent institution: it’s a dishonest, opaque, insincere, legally dubious, and increasingly just absurd institution mired in scandal and with known bad actors on what little of a board of directors it has.
Reform this thing or kill it.
Re: OpenAI's comment to the NTIA on open model weights
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you think they would voluntarily disclose this to the public ? Companies are typically required to keep this information private.
I think that they are trying to scare regulators into banning truly open LLMs as too dangerous and instead trusting "responsible" people like Altman to keep things safe.
Your speculation is arguably fact. I argue it’s fact.