I understand that the LLM models are advancing quickly and aren't easily explainable or transparent. The models feel like magic at times. But that doesn't mean society should shut them down.
This is fearful behavior and spreading FUD really. These folks should take the time to understand how an LLM works before taking this action.
And pilgrims abandoned all they had to cross a virtually unpassable ocean to seek empty land to build from scratch but with the freedom to continue experimenting with their new ideas.
Funny how this country has come full circle.
- To be paid a lot of money by OpenAI to go away, or
- To be paid a lot of money to have a role in vetting future AI products, or
- To be paid a lot of money by wealthy individuals in the AI alignment camp, or
- To be paid a lot of money by OpenAI's competitors to block research until they can catch up with OpenAI.
This is exactly why LLMs aren't useful or trustworthy for anything serious other than the niche of summarization of existing text. Even with that, you have to keep checking that it isn't hallucinating or bullshitting.
> These folks should take the time to understand how an LLM works before taking this action.
Anyone who knows about deep neural networks already knows that fundamentally they are black-boxes and are extremely poor at explainability and reasoning. This also applies to LLMs and it is not 'FUD'.
Most likely it’s a play to buy time for competition to catch up.
Yet, restricting OpenAi on the other hand won't prevent other big companies from building their own in-house GPT-4 (or GPT5) level model. We're going there whether the government likes it or not, At the very least OpenAi is transparent (more than Google or facebook at least).
Uh huh. mentally filing this group into “AI grifters to be ignored”.
Sure there are competitors like Google but so far OpenAI is the leader and doesn't seem to be slowing down. The market could evolve into a natural duopoly, especially given the huge capital expenditures and technical know-how required to stand up and maintain a cutting edge LLM like GPT-4.
Once GPT-4/chatGPT reaches a certain tipping point for disruption, and public sentiment turns from curiosity to fear, the resulting backlash and scrutiny could be on the level of Microsoft's antitrust case in the 1990s. If I were Sam, I'd be pouring resources and money into DC to try to get ahead of this coming storm.
amongst the soon-to-be-permanently unemployed middle class there are going to be a few crazy people
once/if they realise what these companies are working towards: their employees will require 24/7 security...
I'm not sure this is a future that any of us want (bar some executives)?
As long as ChatGPT and GPT-4 is available as an API, the cat has been tethered by its owner and can be put back into the bag.
> This moment in time feels like early 2000s when Web 1.0 became real to masses and suddenly everyone had a use for web.
Where 90% of startups have just went out of business. Even if they are emerging, the big tech conglomerates will just out pace them before they could attempt to challenge them.
> We are at precipice of the next big technology cycle, and this is showing all the classical symptoms of incumbents fighting the inevitable disruption
They said that about FSD as well, IoT, etc. Yet none of that was trusted enough to 'take off'.
There is something in the way which separates the legitimate use-cases from the grifters and it is called 'Regulation and compliance', which eliminates the majority of short-term grifts just like the AI hype of LLMs on everything.
> “Deceptive” practices are defined in the Commission’s Policy Statement on Deception as involving a material representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. An act or practice is “unfair” if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”
It comes as no surprise that this complaint is from Mark Rotenberg, former head of EPIC. He's very well aware of the boundaries of the FTC's power, and this complaint effectively serves as a letter to the FTC from an expert about how the FTC can position itself to begin regulating AI.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell
But these articles about AI are nuts, some state AI will destroy all life on Earth. That was a headline I ran across that was suppose to be signed by some scientists. I did not read it because it sounded crazy.
Also, these GPT* things is not really AI, but word/sentence parsers and probably some fancy database lookup.
I'm going to give you some advice, without taking a stance on the content of that open letter one way or the other. If you do not engage with someone or some group because you think they 'sound crazy' based solely on a news headline, you are only limiting yourself.
Do yourself a favor and go read it for yourself, and make your own judgement about whether it is crazy. Maybe you read it and your suspicions are confirmed: you do think it is crazy, but now you have a first-hand view of exactly how crazy it is, and you can think about how to react given that influential people hold views you think are crazy. Or maybe you read it and your suspicions are overturned, and you have a first-hand view of a new perspective.
But if you just say "that's crazy, I'm not reading that" based on a news headline, you're letting a very superficial take determine your information diet. You're not even reading the article itself, just the headline! And the primary source the article and headline is based on is right there, it is relatively short.
And journalists don't even get to write their own headlines, which is a huge issue within journalism. Headline writing is a dedicated role that has been SEO-ed to death. If you're a journalist, it is taboo to publicly blame your headline writers for the stupid, reductionist, and misleading titles they gave the piece you wrote, but every journalist has stories to tell about how much they hate their headline writers.
It's in our best interest the an American company is far and away the leader in this field.
> CAIDP calls GPT-4 “biased, deceptive, and a risk to privacy and public safety.”
But the rest looks good to me:
> The group says the large language model fails to meet the agency’s standards for AI to be “transparent, explainable, fair, and empirically sound while fostering accountability.”
> The group wants the FTC to require OpenAI establish a way to independently assess GPT products before they’re deployed in the future. It also wants the FTC to create a public incident reporting system for GPT-4 similar to its systems for reporting consumer fraud. It also wants the agency to take on a rulemaking initiative to create standards for generative AI products.
Sure, there will be (more) FOSS clones, and non-American clones. NBD — if they can't pass stuff like this, they're not going to be as valuable regardless.
How many used an AI for medical advice? A medical AI which said "no cancer" when there was? Does Therac-25 count as GOFAI? How many have taken an LLM at face value about some topic, and like those stories about GPS directions gone wrong, done something daft that we've not necessarily yet heard about (or if we have, the headline was "Florida Man does X" rather than "AI tells man to do X, and he does"?)
It's like how we don't know how many people had a crash shortly after failing to notice FSD had switched itself off.
I like Elon and his companies, but this is ridiculous. Autopilot AI has been killing people for years now and he always defends it.
Like they are going to stop China or any other country outside US or EU.
The most they can hope to do, is to force some companies to move off-shore.
Wonder where was all this people when Elon Musk started releasing betas on FSD.
Self-appointed 'Center for AI and Digital Policy', nothing more to add.
I think these guys looking for regulations, stopping development, etc. don't know anything about economics. Everything they are doing, will backfire quite soon.
Loudly and openly for the entire duration, including governments specifically saying the marketing was misleading.
If you want to use a statistical definition of how many people Tesla AI has killed by comparing it to a baseline of non-AI cars, then you also need to do this for every other non-Tesla AI that you might assert has killed people. For example, for the medical misdiagnoses referenced in the sibling discussion, you would need to ask whether ChatGPT has misdiagnosed more cancers than doctors.
But either way, it's inarguable that Tesla AI has directly killed more people than any other publicly known AI. I suppose you could consider guided missiles, but those are not really AI (although you could make a similar argument that neither is FSD).
Why do you believe that to be the case? It's been in the news since at least Jan 2020: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/02/tech/google-health-breast...
On the other hand, a "self-driving car" driving into a tree and killing its occupants seems an obviously more direct case of death by AI than a user asking an AI if it has cancer and the AI saying no. And if you want to make the argument that Tesla drivers are supposed to have their hands on the wheel, then you have to also make the argument that ChatGPT users aren't supposed to use it for medical advice.
If we're going to start using excuses for LLMs to get clipped, I think we should focus on the core of the problem, not the fact LLMs can enhance it.
The harm is transparent and greatly eclipses most other threats to cybersecurity.
Well, the potential harm is only deniable by the biggest of shills, but, technically, the only harm is psychological.
So? Most AI isn't. It's not all consumer products.
> not to mention the point of the article is that AI had fewer false positives and false negatives than doctors, which would invalidate the premise of this argument
I can say that about Tesla FSD.
Press release overconfidence works both ways.
You are moving the goal posts. Your argument was that non-Tesla AI has killed its users. There were no users of the service mentioned in the article, ergo none of them could have been killed by it.
> I can say that about Tesla FSD.
The difference is that Tesla FSD is actively used, and its false negatives and positives have actually killed people.
My argument was never that AI will not eventually kill people. It was that so far, Tesla AI has directly killed more people than any other AI.
> Yes. Elon Musk has killed more people with his AI than anyone else has with theirs.
That's "people" not "users".
The development of AGI is an extreme, extreme scenario.
I don't disagree that eventually, AI will lead to both direct and indirect deaths. But so far, the only direct deaths from AI have been from Tesla AI.