Comment on OpenAI says Russian and Israeli groups used its tools to spread disinformation

• davehtaylor@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Exactly.

  Gods this whole “if we outlaw AI only outlaws will have AI” bullshit is so so tiresome and naive

  source

  • frog@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It really is. I’m also not a huge fan of “everyone needs to have access to their own personal AI open source, otherwise only corporations will be able to use it”, like somehow the answer to corporations being shit is to give everyone else a greater ability to be shit too. What the world really needs is even more shit!

    source

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Well fortunately it doesn’t matter what you think, and people will keep developing and improving open source AI nonetheless.

      source

      • frog@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Just don’t complain when the world becomes even more shit than it already is. Open source AIs that rely on scraping content without paying the creator are just as exploitative of workers as corporate AIs doing the exact same thing.

        source
      • h3mlocke@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Image

        source
• eveninghere@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The reality is, passing this huge amount of data was the only way these crazy current AI models work as powerful as ChatGPT. With a restriction like you fantasize, the AI programs would have been dominated by bad actors and the west would not have a counter technology for a decade if not longer.

  Regulating the outputs of AIs would be a separate story. But it’s still overwhelmingly difficult. OpenAI is actually advanced in this region in the sense that they have in pocket the single best technology to politically balance the replies by a chatbot.

  source

  • frog@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    AI programs are already dominated by bad actors, and always will be. OpenAI and the other corporations are every bit the bad actors as Russia and China. The difference between Putin and most techbros is as narrow as a sheet of paper. Both put themselves before the planet and everyone else living on it. Both are sociopathic narcissists who take, take, take, and rely on the exploitation of those poorer and weaker than themselves in order to hoard wealth and power they don’t deserve.

    source

    • eveninghere@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      This is just labeling. You can label everything as bad at will. I’m fine with that, it’s called “you’re entitled to your opinion”. That’s not objective though.

      source

      • frog@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Well, let’s see about the evidence, shall we? OpenAI scraped a vast quantity of content from the internet without consent or compensation to the people that created the content, and leaving aside any conversations about whether copyright should exist or not, if your company cannot make a profit without relying on labour you haven’t paid for, that’s exploitation.

        And then, even though it was obvious from the very beginning that AI could very easily be used for nefarious purposes, they released it to the general public with guardrails that were incredibly flimsy and easily circumvented.

        This is a technology that required being handled with care. Instead, its lead proponents are of the “move fast and break things” mentality, when the list of things that can be broken is vast and includes millions of very real human beings.

        You know who else thinks humans are basically disposable as long as he gets what he wants? Putin.

        So yeah, the people running OpenAI and all the other AI companies are no better than Putin. None of them care who gets hurt as long as they get what they want.

        source
• eveninghere@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I already write one reply to tell my main point. But whatever argument you come up with, I don’t think that’ll match the reality as viewed by AI researchers. If you give me specific short questions I’d be happy to engage in a discussion, with conditions on time.

  In any case, I won’t listen to metaphoric arguments like yours with guns because metaphoric arguments are very difficult to do scientifically. Every situation is different. I mean that anybody can always end the discussion saying “that’s oranges vs apples”, and everything time this happens you’d not have an objective way to counter that.

  source

  • frog@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The metaphoric argument is exactly on point, though: the answer to “bad actors will use it for evil” is not “so everybody should have unrestricted access to this really dangerous thing.” Sorry, but in no situation you can possibly devise is giving everyone access to a dangerous tool the correct answer to bad people having access to it.

    source

    • eveninghere@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I can say it’s both on point and not. For the not, you can ban the gun in the UK and it will be very difficult to bring one from the continent. Peace. But the same is not true for AI. If the UK government bans AI, Russia can still bring it through the internet.

      And then I can still counter-argue that one, and then counter-argue this one also. See what a mess a metaphoric arguments bring.

      source

      • frog@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Had OpenAI not released ChatGPT, making it available to everyone (including Russia), there are no indications that Russia would have developed their own ChatGPT. Literally nobody has made any suggestion that Russia was within a hair’s breadth of inventing AI and so OpenAI had better do it first. But there have been plenty of people making the entirely valid point that OpenAI rushed to release this thing before it was ready and before the consequences had been considered.

        So effectively, what OpenAI have done is start handing out guns to everyone, and is now saying “look, all these bad people have guns! The only solution is everyone who doesn’t already have a gun should get one right now, preferably from us!”

        source