Moving AI governance forward – openai.com(openai.com) |
Moving AI governance forward – openai.com(openai.com) |
None of this will protect against actual risks like massive job losses without any reskilling, lowering of living standards and widespread censorship.
Like, should there be prescription drugs? If you say no, you should be able to get any drug without a prescription, that's pretty out there.
But the question is whether AI is that dangerous, and there's widespread disagreement on that.
I think OpenAI is making it clear to get your seat at the table now. And it probably will be true that this will make it harder for upstarts to join in, but everything so far they've talked about seem reasonable and make sense. And have you worked on things like GDPR compliance? It's a wonder that anyone bothers to get large enough to comply -- it's so much work. But we think privacy is important so we put a huge burden on those companies who hold our data.
And also, in our globalised world, if one or two countries decide to kill competition in the AI space, then I'll bet you that the hosting will move to a different country:)
This is akin to a ship sinking while people are blocking the hallways and fretting about how their makeup looks and where they put their jewelry at. It's so maddeningly absurd there's no point in even discussion, shove them in the nearest cabin and out of the way so the serious people can get on with it.
Why?
I'm not concerned about censorship, but I am deeply concerned about the potential economic fallout. Why shouldn't I be? I would genuinely love to have one less worry on my plate.
Is the ACLU or EFF doing anything in this space?
How is DALL-E 2 the "industry frontier" of image generation?
It is very very weird OpenAI has done nothing with DALL-E 2, not even a price drop to compete.
I'm even more sure a price drop wouldn't let them compete with the open models out there.
>Dalle 2
I'm sorry OpenAI, but your model is not the frontier; also it's funny that it's the only text-to-image models mentioned, they probably know how better the other models are.
Also similar to everyone's response when asked: "What do _you_ think your punishment should be?"
EDIT: Although likely still has investments in YC backed companies -- but just a guess.
This is about both defining the regulations and practices. Other companies can have different practices. Fox News and MSNBC both report the news, but do so with very different principles and practices. But they are both beholden to the same laws (around libel, slander, etc...).
For AI these laws will be created, period. It will happen. And companies will also take on different perspectives about their own practices. As you note, there may well be laws about national security. But I imagine bland sanitization will be a feature of some versus others. The market will settle some of this, but you're short-sighted if you think the market will be the arbiter of it all.
Bland sanitization is bad for almost everyone. It will destroy society if not regulated... I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is converging towards rightthink and everything else gets memoryholed. AI is becoming similar to a public utility, so it should be regulated like it. That requires impartiality and a lack of censorship.
I think worry isn’t the right response. I think the right response is awareness of the issues and broad collaborative innovation to democratize the tool for as many people as possible, and let us build twice as many things that are ten times more complex with the same people working.
That is needed long term, but I don't see how it does anything for the more immediate problems. If enough people are out of work, that's a crisis.
The right response, in my opinion, is to be honest about the risks and find ways of mitigating them. I don't see anyone of substance doing anything like that.
Large language models are most a threat to writers. But if you’ve used them enough you’ll realize it’s a tool shaped by the humans ability to write. Prompting to effect is not trivial, and the quality of the response is greatly informed not just by the intention but by the style of language and the quality of the words, the skillful manipulation of language that generates more language. These models have no agency or intellect, and their output is simply a likely continuation of the humans promoting. I imagine skilled writers can find they can do much more and better if they learn to master language tools, and they’ll still be the author and still be writing. People unskilled with language will be at an immense disadvantage using these tools.
However the delta will be much narrower, and people who are otherwise unable to convey themselves effectively but have great ideas will finally be heard. Those who are skilled at conveying themselves and manipulating through language but are poor in ideas will not be nearly as powerful. That will be a major realignment. And those who are in power now by virtue of their gift won’t give up ground to those who are elevated by the tool to take their place.
These are going to be painful changes for a lot of people. Pain is never good. But it’s too late to reverse, so those who adapt and learn will lead. And those who try to dig faster than the machine won’t.
I was reading Man’s Search For meaning, written shortly after ww2. The author notes that Americans have too much free time. Clearly that is not the case 80 years later.
Long term, yes. But it's also happened many times in history that sudden economic disruption has had a very serious cost. That things might be better in a couple of decades is of no help to people who can't eat or keep a roof over their heads today because of these changes.
It's not what the people want, it's whoever runs the AI wants... This is why they should be regulated so they can't have a negatively distorting effect on society with bias and censoring ideas which they don't like.