zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
Nothing makes me think of Altman as a grifter more than his trying to spook uneducated lawmakers with sci-fi notions like "superintelligence" for which there are no plausible mechanisms or natural analogues, and for which the solution is to lobby government build a moat around his business and limit his competitors. We do not even have a consensus around a working definition of "intelligence", let alone any evidence that it is a linear or unbounded phenomenon, and even if it were, there is no evidence ChatGPT is a route to even human-level intelligence. The sum total of research into this "field" is a series of long chains of philosophical leaps that rapidly escape any connection to reality, which is no basis for a wide-ranging government intervention.

>>lsy+c9
Exactly, I also struggle to take seriously the "security" concerns of an organisation that releases this product with plugins and no proper way to restrict them and what they can do. The prompt injections are just ridiculous and show a complete lack of thought going into the design [0].

"move fast and break things"

It very much feels like they are trying to build a legislative moat, blocking out competitors and even open source projects. Ridiculous.

I don't fear what this technology does to us, I fear what we do to each other because of it. This is just the start.

0: https://twitter.com/wunderwuzzi23/status/1659411665853779971

> Let ChatGPT visit a website and have your email stolen.

> Plugins, Prompt Injection and Cross Plug-in Request Forgery.

>>samwil+ec
You can host your open source AI project in Belarus or Russia or whatever. You can even VPN into the country and pretend you're actually developing it there. And we also have Tor, I2P, etc. to hide where you're coming from. And we will likely have anti-stylometric tools so it will be very difficult to identify the author of the code.

So it's unlikely the government will be able to put a stop to it. Especially given AI is a technology that many will find very useful. They can't even put a stop to child sexual abuse material on the Internet, material which is universally hated. How are they ever going to stop AI development then? It's all going to go underground, on the darknet.

And restricting the development of open source software likely will be found unconstitutional, on First Amendment grounds, in the US. And it's likely to spur civil disobedience as well.

>>182716+vd
> They can't even put a stop to child sexual abuse material on the Internet, which almost nobody wants. How are they ever going to stop AI development then?

They can't stop CSAM because of the tradeoff against privacy, not for technical reasons. AI development requires expensive, specialized hardware. Just not really comparable things.

>>idopms+7j
It might not require specialized hardware in the future as GPUs get more powerful and we have other techniques such as LoRA for fine-tuning the models. We might see a distributed training [1] effort harnessing thousands of gamer GPUs worldwide, as well. All of this powered by open source software. Also there could be advances in the training software making it vastly more efficient.

1. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11913.pdf