zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
The only way this kind of research could be done "in the open" is if it was funded by taxpayers' money.

Except we have global corporations with elite fiscal layer teams, but no global government (giant lizzards are always disappointing) - so some global corporation was going to own it in the end, it was a matter of "time" and "US or Chinese". The time is now, he winner is US.

Moving on.

The next move is for (some) governements to regulate, others to let it be a complete far west, bad actors to become imaginative, and it the end... taxpayers' money will clean up the unforeseen consequences, while investor's money is spent on booze and swimming pools, I suspect ?

Still, nice to watch the horse race for being the "Great Filter" between 'AI', 'nukes' and 'climate change' (with 'social media' as the outsider).

>>phtriv+1k
https://huggingface.co/bigscience/bloom

open-source and funded by the French government

>>permo-+tk
It is more open than most of the competition. The “ethical” licensing they opted for however makes them incompatible with both FLOSS and open science definitions of open. Models that are open and true to the name would for example be GPT-J.