zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

>>jasonh+4t
Interestingly it was the other way around this time, at least to start...

>>dnissl+Ct
This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.

>>jasonh+fu
Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?

>>rvnx+Yv
Openness in the context of AI is not straightforward. The open source folks read it one way, and the alignment people read it another.

It is entirely possible a program that spits out the complete code for a nuclear targeting system should not be released in the wild.

>>Americ+Ny
Nuclear codes, assuming they are using modern cryptography would not be spat out by any AI, unless they were leaked publicly.

Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources.

I'm more worried about other kinds of weapons, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of censoring the science of nature from people.

I think the only long term option is to beef up defenses.

>>aeonik+5I
>Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources.

The average postgraduate in physics can design a nuclear bomb. That ship sailed in the 1960s. Anyone who uses that as an argument wants a censorship regime that the medieval catholic church would find excessive.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science

>>aitrw+EL
Significantly more info out and available now than when they worked on that project, too. It's only gotten easier.