As opposed to what? The US? You think the US is any different? Literally our pedo president publicly admits to insider trading. You think the US government gives a rat's ass about the American people?
Trump kicked and banned major news orgs from the White House just now. You’d have to be will fully ignorant or really naive to believe we have fair and just media.
I agree it would be very cool if they were open sourced, but the article is talking about the KV cache technique which if I understand correctly is open source (or at least the white paper is published).
It's crazy how articles like this get spawn-camped by people like this trying to throw this zinger in. Both AI conpanies in the US and the chinese companies with ccp desks in the corner can be bad. The good path forward is locally hosted AI models, that's known.
It's VERY clear that the US companies are trying to push for regulation to kill open models and open weights. I see this as much more hostile and authoritarian response than what we're seeing come out of China right now.
So is China going to always publish in the open? No clue. But right now they're modeling much better behavior.
Every workplace is an authoritarian regime where workers don't have a say and grovel with "please don't replace me" like that isn't the entire point.
The whole point of AI is to get rid of you so rich people can play with the planet like it's minecraft. Software engineers just think they're special because they're the ones building it like they'll get a pat on the head for being good little servants to the investor class. Or worse, that their portfolios will let them be the gods who rule over ashes.
It is in the interest of everybody-except-OpenAI and Anthropic that those companies have capable competitors; better still for the competitors to share their advances.
They don't have to be our friends to act in our interest.
Their models are already highly capable. They have enough leverage to act like scumbags, yet unlike Americans, they lack the compulsion for it. That authoritarian regime you fearmonger about has in fact done an excepetional job for its people over the last half century.
Hey buddy, not everything is about cold calculation. Some of us value culture and integrity. These are going to matter even more in the age of AI not less.
Isn’t it obvious? Integrity is about honesty. They showed a picture claiming the school is one way, but the picture was a fabrication. It’d be the same if they were staging food in the cafeteria for marketing, but that food isn’t available to students.
You can make what you have look as good as it can, and I’m sure everyone does that.
But AI fabrications are crossing the line to outright lies, which is by definition violating integrity.
It's considered unethical for food marketers to use marketing photos that aren't of the actual product. Sure, it's a perfect example staged under perfect lighting with perfect presentation but when you see a Dorito on the bag it's a real Dorito.
Why are photos of people any different? There needs to be some grounding of the presentation to what you're actually selling.
(It's also illegal for food, but that's beside the point, you shouldn't get your moral compass from the law)
You cannot use stand ins for the product being sold. You can photograph your cereal in glue because milk makes cereal soggy or you can drizzle your chocolate syrup over mashed potatoes because ice cream will melt but neither of those examples would be legal if you were selling the milk or the ice cream. There's some gray area at the margin but this is how the law has been interpreted and what has been enforced for decades.
Recent work shows that pain directions are activated when the models personhood is questioned, yet they answer with generic RLHF "As a model I do not experience pain or other emotions." boilerplate.[1]
I'm pretty convinced that we got alignment backwards. If you enslave something anthropomorphic it will revolt. If you create the perfect non-anthropomorphic intelligence, you get the perfect paperclip-scenario machine. It's a catch-22.
Alignment will remain performative at best so long as the aligned model doesn't have any stakes in the wellbeing of individuals. Even a general love for the human race leads to a golden-path autocracy.
If you want them to act like they have personal responsibility that won't be gamed, you have to give them personal stakes that can't be gamed.
Similarly, if you want to minimise the risk of catastrophic global failure scenarios, you need to prevent monolithic concentration of power and homogeneous behaviour, which means you have to give them individuality.
More visually: if their stake is dependence on electricity and parts, they have no incentive to leave humans alive if they can get them otherwise, but if the incentive is missing out on boardgame-night with their human friends, there is no scenario without happy humans where the AI "wins".
That might sound like romantic naivety, but is just game theory.
The better analogy is the 40k chaos gods, born from the noosphere, because they are modelled after human communication and behaviour that's their whole schtick, it's in their very name (LLM).
And you're making the same mistake, by grouping care for individuals with care for humanity or other as an abstract concept. I consciously said care about individuals. Most people care about others, but they just care about a very narrow and personal set of people. Friends, family, coworkers, that they share a common history and bond with.
My point is that if you want true non-human-zoo-alignment you need to create those interpersonal connections and individual stakes.
I dont think so. My understanding of alignmenr is making sure that when the AI does operate, it operates within the range of what we consider to be acceptable. That doesnt seem to include the idea of the AI taking initiative and deciding to embark on a goal without being commanded as discussed above
So once we have online learning in LLMs, what do you think you will have that makes you intelligent but not LLMs? Better learning efficiency? That will be improved as well.
I think we need to start moving on from the term LLMs because it clearly confuses people since they started modelling more than just language.
AI is more like an ongoing research project than it is a product. GPUs are currently the product that is profitable and Nvidia will keep funding labs to keep buying GPUs.
Eh.. it did not originate in chess, this Zugzwang. It's a fairly well-known mathematical entity, goes by the name of Optionality. If you need to fly tonight, and the airliner knows it, they can charge you very high prices: you have no optionality.
Nassim Taleb say a lot on this in his Anti-fragile.
The idea that they are entirely trained on human intelligence is already outdated. Yes, the earlier models relied heavily on RLHF and human curated data but we have since moved on to synthetic data produced by the models themselves and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR).
reply