|
|
|
|
|
|
by slavoingilizov
1185 days ago
|
|
|
People have already pointed out that there's no direct correlation between "safe" and "open-source" in the other comments. I agree. But one other reason I think this is flawed is that it assumes innovation in those models has finished. We're not at the stage where these are good enough to revolutionise everything. There's a lot more research, hard work and creativity that needs to be unleashed for all benefits to be realised. Traditionally, for-profit startups have been the best vehicle for that to happen. OpenAI has only scratched the surface and can do a lot more. Forcing them into open-sourcing and only caring about safety would quickly stop this progress. They are not a megacorp extracting rent who we need to fight - they are literally a startup changing the world in front of our eyes. |
|
|
But this isn’t about mega-corp vs startup who is better at changing the world.
There is a potential major civilization-ending downside to the amount of change true AGI could bring before we could control it. Or at the very least an unaccountable central autocrat who will own the entire world if they can control the AGI.
OP is suggesting open source is one way to shine sunlight on the innovations that are happening that we will all be affected by and thus should have a voice in controlling.