[Amezarak]

> How is this different from, say, a newspaper with an editorial board, or a book publishing house with a particular set of standards and conventions? For that matter, how is this different from dang enforcing the rules of this board?

I would be inclined to agree, if AI safetyists were not in general advocating that LLM source, training data, models, etc. not be released to the public, because AI safetyists do not want non-AI safetyists to have unfettered access to any LLMs (and other AI tech), anywhere, for "safety" reasons. Of course, if it was all open, I agree it wouldn't much matter if "Open"AI wanted to restrict their hosted LLM in whatever ways they felt best.

[bhpm]

AI safetiests are operating in a world of pure fantasy, then; the techniques and data sources will always leak.

[FeepingCreature]

Seems to be taking a while for OpenAI.

[bhpm]

Not really. The technology has been around for, what, a year?

[FeepingCreature]

To be fair, what you're basically saying is "how dare these people try to actually succeed at their stated objectives." AI safety for big companies while anyone can spin up an AGI in their basement would indeed be extremely pointless, which is why AI safetyists are trying to prevent it.

[Amezarak]

Yes, but GP was suggesting it was just exercising editorial control over what they put out themselves.