| |
| ▲ | 01100011 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So you are contending that individuals cannot run advanced models? What brought you to that conclusion? Secondly, are you contending that progress in model efficiency and hardware just stops at whatever level you think is sufficient to prevent individuals or organizations from acquiring sufficient resources to run advanced models? | | |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No. And that’s not necessary for my position. I have 4 Mac studios. I run large models and am building propelcompute.com to let people self manage clusters of their own hardware or combine hardware to run models. It’s not the models that are the problem. It’s that the people building them are shielded from the consequences of what they are building. I would say if you self host a model and it takes down a power grid you are personally liable for the consequences. I believe in broad distribution of AI and advancing its capabilities but not in a manner that socializes the harms and privatizes the gains which is what we have now. | |
| ▲ | daveguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it's more the noise, power consumption, local water consumption, and wholesale theft of creative works. ..."government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -Lincoln, Gettysburg Adress Unfortunately for AI, it still is. People still get to decide things at the city, town, village level. |
| |
| ▲ | trhway 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > ...massive GPU clusters. We don't have to allow openai or anthropic access to those anymore if anybody was looking for a good reason for datacenters in space. | |
| ▲ | nradov 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who is "we"? The GPUs and training algorithms get more efficient all the time. In a few years, creating effective LLMs isn't going to require massive GPU clusters. | | |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We is society through government via regulation. I don’t think GPUs or training will get that efficient that fast absent a distillation target provided by the easily accessible frontier lab APIs. Further, even if you are right, so what. Is that a reason to just accept bad public policy? That’s like saying, anyone can learn how to make smallpox at home with a basic lab set up so we should just ignore any safety measures. | | |
| ▲ | eddythompson80 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Is that a reason to just accept bad public policy? Not necessarily, but it should probably inform that public policy. I think the problem is no one knows what the public policy should be assuming that scenario is true. Even if you, somehow, regulate away massive GPU cluster training making such future training impossible, existing models are already here. Further already training smaller models for things like images, speech, and other specialties is cheaper than the bigger models. I agree that we need some regulations like everything else, but it’s not clear to me what the right policy should be. I think the European ai act is a fine start, but it’s clearly not enough nor does it necessarily limits the training portion just the application portion. Not to mention that the requirements there can be summarized into something like “you have to be careful, and show evidence you tried to be careful”. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | “you have to be careful, and show evidence you tried to be careful”. That sounds reasonable. If applied to OpenAI and their agents multiple times breaking out of bad secured sandboxes, it should be enough. But limiting the training? There really is china and they have a different approach I suppose. But it is possible to talk with them. |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What a silly comparison. LLMs have nothing to do with smallpox. Computing always gets cheaper and faster over time. We can argue about the exact rate of improvement but the results are inevitable and uncontrollable. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Short reminder from the guidelines: 'When disagreeing, reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." ' Also LLM's have something to do with smallpox as a unrestricted LLM will happily guide any wannabe terrorist in how to make them. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Razengan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > cant run without massive GPU clusters. How far back into the history of computing do people who keep repeating shit like that know about? God. Look at the thing in your fucking hand. Now go back just 20 years and see how things were. | | |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So we should just yolo speed run this because of Moores law? How about you recognize there is a set of rules outside of tech and we can decide how to define them. Just because models and GPUs will be more advanced in the future doesn’t mean we need to let OpenAI and anthropic establish monopolies on the backs of stolen training data give unfettered access to the internet, the terminal and people’s file system while also allowing them to have limited liability protection behind the corporate veil. That’s a choice. | | |
| ▲ | buriram 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But who are "we"? The society, the government, the regulator, or the consumer? I don't see any of such entity would solve that problem. The government and regulator are in OpenAI and Anthropic's pocket, and I don't trust them a single bit on coming up with regulations. The consumers don't care; they just need something smart and cheap. And the society doesn't work either: each person is too busy fighting for their own survival rather than changing the system. | |
| ▲ | Razengan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Just because models and GPUs will be more advanced in the future doesn’t mean we need to let OpenAI and anthropic establish monopolies Exactly, again, look at what COMPUTERS THEMSELVES used to be in the 1960s/1970s. What the "P" in the PC stood for and why it was such a big deal |
| |
| ▲ | CamelCaseName 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For anyone else curious: > In 2006, the mobile phone market was dominated by stylish flip phones, early music players, and physical keypads just one year before the iPhone changed the industry | | |
|
|
