See so many arguments formulated this way that aim to assuage concern by reducing what's appears to be a difference in kind/essence to one that's merely different in degree/sophistication -- don't think it really works even if true.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
4
Two interesting 180s afoot:
-Many ppl who hated AI & dismissed it as trivial/a scam/gimmick/etc. now sounding alarm bells
-Hardcore AI enthusiasts who praised its transformative capacity now dismissing the idea that it's powerful/transformative enough to be dangerous
-Many ppl who hated AI & dismissed it as trivial/a scam/gimmick/etc. now sounding alarm bells
-Hardcore AI enthusiasts who praised its transformative capacity now dismissing the idea that it's powerful/transformative enough to be dangerous
@smithy my interpretation is that yes it is powerful and dangerous, but a lot of these things are deliberate mischaracterizations of the events, by the big ai saas companies, to scare people into regulating ai. the end result being, legally kneecap open source models so they protect their revenue stream. feels contradictory but they need you to be unreasonably scared of AI so that you kill off their competitors and they can sell the dangerous tech to the government, who places no restrictions on itself regarding dangerous tech (see: nuclear weapons, gov gets them and you don't)
@sun Definitely makes sense -- especially given that maintaining a moat for the big frontier labs seems so difficult and freakishly costly (and we're seeing that in how close open source models can get with fractions of the cost), but I don't think the right response to potentially regulatory capture is to take the opposite PR approach to hand-wave away concerns as some ppl seem to be doing.
@smithy right now I treat it similarly in my mind to guns. dangerous but nobody gets to take them away from you. However, I have been growing nuance on this category. There are things where, I think it is empowering for individuals to have it; the risk is real but worth it; freedom of individuals to have some tool basically unrestricted doesn't extrapolate to billion dollar corporations having a "right" to use the same tool on people at industrial scale, they can be regulated.