zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given.

Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch up would not be a positive.

>>HarHar+vu1
> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given.

Not really. It slows down like security over obscurity. It needs to be open that we know the real risks and we have the best information to combat it. Otherwise, someone who does the same in closed matter, has better chances to get advantage when misusing it.

>>nicce+1w1
Just like nuclear weapons?

The whole “security through obscurity doesn’t work” is absolute nonsense. It absolutely works and there are countless real world examples. What doesn’t work is relying on that as your ONLY security.

>>tw04+wy1
The knowledge of how to make the tool chain of building a nuclear weapon is something that every undergraduate in physics can work out from first principles.

This has been the case since 1960: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science