[nathansherburn]

I share your concerns and think you're broadly correct. I think it's worth adding some nuance though.

When you drill into specifics there are almost always exceptions. For instance, in your example about sharing research, there are certainly some types of research we shouldn't automatically and immediately make publicly available like biological superviruses or software vulnerabilities.

I think the same can be said about AI. We should aim to be as open as we can but I'd be hesitant about being an open source absolutist.

[from-nibly]

No absolutely not.

To assume that there even are "good guys" that can "do it safely" is INSANE.

Any attempt to prevent democratizing AI is just a capitalist ploy to make a monopoly over their market. There is no saftey play here.

The FED needs to stay the frik away from this.

[nathansherburn]

I agree we want to democratize AI and we should be very, very weary of powerful people trying to get a monopoly on AI.

But I'm not ready to say absolutely everything should immediately be shared with everyone. At least not until it's clear we know what we're dealing with.

I know it can be hard to trust people but the fact is we have to. Even today, there are many people with the power to end the world (nuclear weapons, viruses etc) but we trust the people who have these capabilities not to abuse their power. We do this because we don't want anyone to have the right to launch nuclear weapons. And I think that's wise.

I definitely don't know for sure but AI may be another one of these technologies.

Either way, you can fight against regulatory capture, the downsides of capitalism etc without being an open source absolutist.