zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
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 well heeled investors and is to be avoided at all costs.

It's also deeply troubling that regulatory capture is such an issue these days as well, so putting a government entity in front of the use and existence of this technology is a double whammy — it's not simply about innovation.

The current generation of AIs are "scary" to the uninitiated because they are uncanny valley material, but beyond impersonation they don't show the novel intelligence of a GPI... yet. It seems like OpenAI/Microsoft is doing a LOT of theater to try to build a regulatory lock in on their short term technology advantage. It's a smart strategy, and I think Congress will fall for it.

But goodness gracious we need to be going in the EXACT OPPOSITE direction — open source "core inspectable" AIs that millions of people can examine and tear apart, including and ESPECIALLY the training data and processes that create them.

And if you think this isn't an issue, I wrote this post an hour or two before I managed to take it live because Comcast went out at my house, and we have no viable alternative competitors in my area. We're about to do the same thing with AI, but instead of Internet access it's future digital brains that can control all aspects of a society.

>>happyt+ZB1
> 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 as to lock in a few big vendors. Some of the Senators on the panel also expressed concern about #2.

>>SkyMar+cW1
That would make the regulations fairly pointless unless you think only mega-corps will ever be able to afford the compute for these things.

Compute continues to get cheaper and cheaper. We have not hit the physics wall yet on that.

That and if someone cracks efficient distributed training in a swarm type configuration then you could train models Seti@Home style. Lots of people would be happy to leave a gaming PC on to help create open source LLMs. The data requirements might be big but I just got gigabit fiber installed in my house so that barrier is vanishing too.

>>api+ci2
The other day someone offered up their 200x GPU crypto mining cluster to train uncensored models after the incident on HuggingFace where someone threatened to get the uploader of the uncensored models fired citing safety issues.

>>nullse+2s2
That’s bizarre, what is unsafe about an uncensored LLM? Or I guess the same question in a different way, how does censoring an LLM make it safe? I could see an uncensored LLM being bad PR for a company but unsafe? How?

>>chasd0+4E2
That individual in particular was pushing some left-wing talking points.

Though the other day Yuval Noah Harari gave a great talk on the potential threat to democracy - https://youtu.be/LWiM-LuRe6w