> Open-weight models are "decelerationist"

Open weight models are accelerating AI adoption and make it easier for other labs to advance their own models.

There is nothing decelerationist about it.

This entire line of thinking can be dismissed by observing that labs releasing open weight models are advancing rapidly.

▲

zozbot234 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's sub-frontier activity - it has no bearing on the very real safety that would be gained by slowing down ("pacing") the proprietary frontier. The current cybersecurity scares are all about proprietary and internal models; open weight models are great for defense but get very modest scores on offensive evaluations (which makes sense if they weren't specifically post-trained for offense tasks).

▲

Aurornis 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Those unregulated sub-frontier labs become the new frontier labs because they continue advancing.

They advance with the benefit of the open weight models that US companies were forced to release.

	▲	zozbot234 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Those unregulated sub-frontier labs become the new frontier labs because they continue advancing. If you're referring to open weight labs, then that continuing advancement has been successfully "paced" via the decelerationist effect of open weights. Isn't that effectively what Dario is arguing for? He's explicitly saying that "pacing" the frontier won't feel to users like no advancement is happening.

▲

wasabi991011 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For other labs to advance their own models, but only up to the frontier, not really (much) past it.

Is the frontier's moat not mainly data and compute? How does making the frontier open weight affect that?

▲

20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]