[guelo]

I don't see giving spammers, marketers and scammers more powerful tools as the ethical stance.

[shon]

That’s an understandable view point. However, “Security through obscurity” just doesn’t work. Worse, trying to keep something from people really only punishes/limits the rule followers.

The bad guys get it anyway so this gives the good guys a chance.

[trention]

I am curious what is the reasoning behind "giving "good guys" access to language models will {deus ex machina} and thus allow us to prevent the spam and abuse".

[leereeves]

Automated tools to distinguish AI generated text from human writing and hide the AI spam.

[shon]

This ^^ + many other mitigation/analytics use cases.

[numpad0]

Can humans be trained en masse to output less distinguishable text from those of NN?

[guelo]

There's not much obscurity here. If you have tens of millions of dollars to throw at compute and a bunch of PhDs you could develop similar tech. I don't understand the idea that ethics somehow requires existing private models to be made available to everybody.

[shon]

Yeah I was responding to a post asking why we should allow open access, given that some of those with access will do bad things.

I agree with you. Ethics doesn't demand that existing private tech be made available. Who's saying that??

OpenAI is just catching shade because their initial founding mission was to democratize access to AI tech and they've gone pretty far the other way.

[remram]

Almost certainly they are getting it, OpenAI will just get paid for it.

[dqpb]

Better take away the internet then

[sarahhudson]

They wont, but the cat is out of the bag. It is data, and data gets leaked, shared in the open, shared in the dark. Researchers can be bribed.

It is like: you can not talk to your kids about drugs and pretend they don't exist ... or you can.