Perhaps Open AI simply can't exist (too hard and expensive to coordinate/crowd-source compute and hardware). If it can, then, to me, it should and would.
OpenAI produced GPT-2, but did not release it, as it couldn't be made safe under those conditions, when not monitored or patch-able. So it put it behind an API and owned its responsibility.
I didn't take issue with Meta's business methods and can respect its cunning moves. I take issue with things like them arguing "Open Source AI improves safety", so we can't focus on the legit cost-benefits of releasing advanced, ever-so-slightly risky, AI into the hands of novices and bad actors. It would be a failure on my part if I let myself get rigamaroled.
One should ideally own that hypothetical 3% failure rate to deny CSAM request when arguing for releasing your model still. Heck, ignore it for all I care, but they damn well do know how much this goes up when the model is jailbroken. But claiming instead that your open model release will make the world a better place for children's safety, so there is not even a need to have this difficult discussion?
AI safety is expensive, or even impossible, by releasing your models for local inference (not behind API). Meta AI shifts the responsibility of highly-general highly-capable AI models to smaller developers, putting ethics, safety, legal, and guard-rails responsibility on innovators who want to innovate with AI (without having the knowledge or resources to do so by themselves) as an "open-source" hacking project.
While Mark claims his Open Source AI is safer, because fully transparent and many eyes make all bugs shallow, the latest technical report makes mention of an internal, secret, benchmark that had to be developed, because available benchmarks did not suffice at that level of capabilities. For child abuse generation, it only makes mention that it investigated this, not any results of these tests or conditions under which it possibly failed. They shove all this liability on the developer, while claiming any positive goodwill generated.
It completely loses their motivation to care for AI safety and ethics if fines don't punish them, but those who used the library to build.
Reasonable for Meta? Yes. Reasonable for us to nod along when they misuse open source to accomplish this? No.
> In 2012, Red Hat Inc. accused VMWare Inc. and Microsoft Corp. of openwashing in relation to their cloud products.[6] Red Hat claimed that VMWare and Microsoft were marketing their cloud products as open source, despite charging fees per machine using the cloud products.
Other companies are way more careful using "open source" in relation to their AI models. Meta now practically owns the term "Open Source AI" for whatever they take it to mean, might as well call it Meta AI and be done with it: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope...
This is such devious, but increasingly obvious, narrative crafting by a commercial entity that has proven itself adversarial to an open and decentralized internet / ideas and knowledge economy.
The argument goes as follows:
- The future of AI is open source and decentralized
- We want to win the future of AI instead, become a central leader and player in the collective open-source community (a corporate entity with personhood for which Mark is the human mask/spokesperson)
- So let's call our open-weight models open-source, and benefit from its imago, require all Llama developers to transfer any goodwill to us, and decentralize responsibility and liability, for when our 20 million dollar plus "AI jet engine" Waifu emulator causes harm.
Read the terms of use / contract for Meta AI products. If you deploy it, some producer finds the model spits out copyrighted content, knocks on Meta's door, Meta will point to you for the rest of the court case. If that's the future for AI, then it doesn't really matter whether China wins.
OpenAI produced GPT-2, but did not release it, as it couldn't be made safe under those conditions, when not monitored or patch-able. So it put it behind an API and owned its responsibility.
I didn't take issue with Meta's business methods and can respect its cunning moves. I take issue with things like them arguing "Open Source AI improves safety", so we can't focus on the legit cost-benefits of releasing advanced, ever-so-slightly risky, AI into the hands of novices and bad actors. It would be a failure on my part if I let myself get rigamaroled.
One should ideally own that hypothetical 3% failure rate to deny CSAM request when arguing for releasing your model still. Heck, ignore it for all I care, but they damn well do know how much this goes up when the model is jailbroken. But claiming instead that your open model release will make the world a better place for children's safety, so there is not even a need to have this difficult discussion?