[nickysielicki]

Regardless of whether it’s intellectual property or it isn’t intellectual property, it doesn’t actually matter. If AI doesn’t stop seeing diminishing returns in scaling up, and it hasn’t yet in the 10 years since the attention/transformers paper, the advent of AI will be the most important development in the history of humanity. Controlling that machine, or at least having one of your own, is an existential problem for nation states. It’s like a matter of national defense.

Do you really think intellectual property laws will prevent this in practice? It’s like as if we said, “hey, USSR, you can’t make a nuke, too! We patented that already.”

Asking China to not distill our models down is equally as ridiculous.

[tadfisher]

I do like that you mention diminishing returns, because we are hitting them in building out all the external requirements for competing at the frontier. Even if model performance scales linearly with energy input, the top labs are now competing with other uses for that energy.

How far are we willing to go as a nation (and as a species) to prove out the scaling laws? Are we willing to sacrifice our industrial base? Would we rather train models or smelt aluminum?

[ctippett]

It's unlikely the USA would be granted an exclusive patent for the atomic bomb given the well-established existence of prior-art in the form of nuclear fission on the sun.

(I actually appreciated your analogy, despite my lark)

[idiotsecant]

In fact, China stealing fire from the gods is essential to the future balance of power, so long as they keep making the results freely available.