| That's kinda weasel-y in itself. If a model is not safe, the access should be limited in general. Or, from a business model perspective; a 'sane' nonprofit doing what OpenAI should, at least in my mind, be able to do the following harmoniously: 1. Release new models that do the same thing they make others allow access do to via their 'products' with reasonable instructions on how to run them on-prem (i.e. I'm not saying what they do has to be fully runnable on a single local box, but it should be reproducible as a nonprofit purportedly geared towards research.) 2. Provide on-line access to models with a cost model that lets others use while furthering the foundation. 3. Provides enough overall value in what they do that outside parties invest regardless of whether they are guaranteed a specific individual return. 4. Not allow potentially unsafe models to be available via less than both research branches. Perhaps, however, I am too idealistic. On the other hand, Point 4 is important, because we can never know under the current model, whether a previous unsafe model has been truly 'patched' for all variations of a model. OTOH, if a given model would violate Point 4, I do not trust the current org to properly disclose the found gaps; better to quietly patch the UI and intermediate layers than ask whether a fix can be worked around with different wording. |