I'm referring to the current situation. How is it not applicable? I think the government wants to eventually nationalize these companies and we have to stop them.

Scaling has hit a wall and will not get us to AGI. Open-source models are only a couple of months behind closed models, and the same level of capability will require smaller and smaller models in the future. This is where open research can help: make the models smaller ASAP. I think it's likely that we'll be able to get something human-level to run on a single 16GB GPU before the end of the decade.

> hardware to run them

Costs a few hundred thousand per server, it's a huge expense if you want it at your home but a rounding error for most organizations.

I run local models on Mac studios and they are more than capable. Don’t spread fud.

> bioweapons convention was successful

Was it successful? The jury is still out.

Because bioweapons suck, this is why. On the other hand AI sucks too, but it has at least some use

because bio-weapons labs take more to run than a workstation pc under your desk with a good graphics card. both in equipment material and training. Its hard to outlaw use of linear algebra and matrix multiplications.

Don't compare general intelligence to bioweapons. A bioweapon cannot defend against or reverse the effects of another bioweapon.

I agree. We will need hardware ownership as well eventually. But the earlier you open-source, the more you slow down the centralization because people will be more likely to buy hardware to run stuff at home and that gives hardware companies an opening to do the right thing.

Sure, but we could have Hetzners and OVHs who just provide the compute for whatever model we want to run.

I think it is much more likely they will be (and are) generating protorealistic images of ther favourite person (real or fictional) with cat ears. Never underestimate what adding cat ears does.

OK, maybe someone will build a bioweapon that does that for real. :P

There are plenty of physical and legal barriers to creating a bioweapon and that's not going to change if everyone becomes smarter with AI. And even if we really somehow end up in a world where everyone has a lab at home and people can easily create viruses, they can also easily create vaccines and anti-virals. The advancements in medicine will outpace bioweapons by a lot because most people are afraid of bioweapons.

Intelligence itself is not dangerous unless only a few orgs control it and it's aligned to those orgs' values rather than human values. The safety narrative is just "intelligence for me, but not for thee" in disguise.

I’m tired of these bizarre hypothetical gotcha arguments. If AI can create bioweapons, it can equally create vaccines and antidotes to them.

We live in a free society. AI should be democratized like any other technology.

The logic used in the treats is that it's a national security risk to not use Claude, but it's also a national security risk to use Claude.

We shouldn't expect these people to consider how the logic breaks down one step ahead when it never made sense in the first place.

Is TikTok stagnating in the US?

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)

Donating the first polio vaccine to humanity.

Funding the majority of HIV prevention in Africa.

The list is long, but you knew that.

What are you talking about? Google employees and the corporation itself in particular overwhelmingly donated to the Harris campaign.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/recipients?id=...

The corporation gave millions _after_ Trump had already won. If your criticism is that, then that does not apply to the people signing.

We shouldn't be scammed by people who intend to get back on the Trump train once they've gotten what they want. But if someone's willing to openly oppose the Trump regime, even out of self-interest, I'm happy to let them feign as much ignorance as they'd like. If his power isn't broken the details of who resisted him when won't matter.