Among most people that nuance will be lost. What they’ll hear is models are dangerous, so they should be controlled/regulated, by those who know best, the incumbents.

“Open models are a threat to the DoD’s ability to leverage Fable for cybersecurity.”

I'm inclined to agree but at this point, considering the low trust OenAI has engendered, yow statement deserves a "why"

Is something you disagree with a "Reddit-tier take"?

Me when I construct my own strawman to avoid the topic

Nowhere in GP comment was funding even mentioned

And we just elected the most openly corrupt president since Teapot Dome.

In 1600 travel was slow, and safety pins hadn't been invented.

But that doesn't mean safety pins sped up travel.

Non-poisonous food is what economists call a 'normal good'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good

> In economics, a normal good is a type of a good for which consumers increase their demand due to an increase in income, unlike inferior goods, for which the opposite is observed. When there is an increase in a person's income, for example due to a wage rise, a good for which the demand rises due to the wage increase, is referred as a normal good. Conversely, the demand for normal goods declines when the income decreases, for example due to a wage decrease or layoffs.

> Whether a good is categorized as a normal good or an inferior good is based on empirical observations, not some essential element of a good. Indeed, the same good may be a normal good for one group of consumers and an inferior good for another group. For example, for moderate-income consumers, a BMW 3 Series car might be a normal good, but for an upper-income group, it might be an inferior good.[1]

That means the null hypothesis is that food and drugs will be safer in rich countries. (Conversely, food and drugs will be less safe in poorer countries. And to a first approximation, that's independent of regulation: India has all kinds of rules for all kinds of things, but I'd still trust a random product I buy in Switzerland more than one I buy in India. Even though the Swiss will probably might have fewer and looser rules on the books.)

Of course, second order effects exist; and regulations often codify what people demand anyway.

Btw, from what I've read the big controversy with the FDA is around requiring efficacy for drugs. People are fairly ok with the safety requirements.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/regulations-targeting-l...

The truth is no one knows, which is why it is first amendment ramifications. Eventually it will be “decided”, but the arguments indicate any decision will be of political desire, not logic, either way. Both sides have a strong case.

Do you have a citation that shows that this issue has been settled?

Actually yes they are. Code has been determined to be protected speech.

Why not?

I agree that there's an element of kayfabe here. But it may be a case of "necessary, though nothing is sufficient": by making these noises, the community can at least know they've done this thing to alert other model providers of the concern. Can you acquire assurance that every model distributor will abide? No. But can you at least know that you've done what you can?

I mean, on the bio side, I've talked with the players and they know the concerns are real but at the same time very, very responsible members of the community have also said "But maybe the benefit really does outweigh the risk!?"

"so models will perform security analysis and reviews but refuse to write exploits."

Yeah, but once you know exactly where the weakness is, a weaker unrestricted model can then write that exploit for you.

What, in your view, is stopping a local police department from deploying an open weights model for cybersecurity like Hugging Face did? Yes, I’ll certainly grant that the engineers at Hughing Face are probably more technically competent than your average IT professional in public service. But technology becomes more accessible over time as lessons are taught and new interfaces or frameworks are developed. The biggest hurdle I see is the hardware/cloud compute/API costs to actually run the models but I don’t think that’s likely to be insurmountable. There’s a huge swath of enterprises, non-profits, and state and local governments that would benefit from frontier or near-frontier models that won’t refuse to answer questions about cybersecurity.