zlacker

>>tim_sw+(OP)
All of this "our tech is so powerful it can end the world" stuff is just marketing buzz. The real threat has always been OpenAI and others keeping these powerful systems with high capital moats, locked up and closed sourced with selective full-access.

>>bluefi+v8
> Company spends 100 million dollars creating a product

> "give me that for free"

>>atleas+P12
Correct, this technology is too powerful to be controlled by a private company. It needs to exist solely as a public good. If we're talking about AI regulation, I think the most sensible move would be requiring that all models need to be open source. Capitalist's lack of ability to profit isn't a public concern.

Some would also argue that it was trained on public data and should be public for that reason as well.

>>bluefi+Rq3
If every model needs to be open source then AI companies need to be taxpayer funded otherwise they'll never make a profit. Until then a for profit, gated approach is the only way to build up enough funds for SOTA R&D

>>atleas+rT4
The R&D will march forward regardless of profitability, there's already been a ton of innovation in the open source space. You're likely to see less innovation with these companies squatting on their IP, data and hardware moats. Case in point: pre-stable diffusion AI vs post-stable diffusion AI. So much innovation happened as soon as the model was "opened".