No, I just see no reason to counting talking to someone who keeps renaming valid criticism as “whining”. There is no mind to be changed here. This is just conservative rhetoric while pretending to talk like a “leftist”
The particular policy you are defending by the way goes against all your argument about wanting open models. The policy to not even have to say what model you use, and yet you defend it just the same. There is no cohesive argument here
Based on your other comments across several threads which do not indicate good faith, I am not continuing this thread here
I don’t think this is a good faith conversation if we are going to continue to call it being massively used against workers and our overall society just “whining”. I was going to respond with all the other negative effects on human cognition from AI which do not go away no matter who makes it, but I see little point to continuing this
Compute is the bottleneck for AI, not labor. Linux was able to develop more because of the labor being done by huge number of people for free and from those employed by other companies working on it. If AI keeps accelerating on the same trajectory, there is little reason to hope for it to get better as the models get larger and training costs get higher
The Luddites were not just smashing machines, they had a list of demands they were trying to build pressure for. They were also trying to get the rights for unions, strikes, abolishing child labor, minimum wages and the things like that which shifted powers back into the favor of workers. They had tried petitioning governments for that for a while before they started smashing things
If the US bans open-weight models, you don’t think a large number of countries would be heavily pressured by industry to do the same?
and has fuck all to do with charity
That’s what I said?
you absolutely can inspect the weights
Current techniques cannot give you anything close to the level of inspection you can with software. Worse still, techniques of frontier AI labs are moving in the opposite direction with it getting harder to understand over time and less going into things like chain of thought
There also projects like petals for doing distributed training
You always be at a massive disadvantage because of the severally more limited compute available. Additionally, distributed computing not inside the same data center adds massively increased latency
Training a model also does nothing for the environmental side of things and just makes things worse
instead of whinging endlessly as if OpenAI or Anthropic give a flying fuck that some brave lib made yet another ‘AI slop’ comment on a niche social media platform.
That’s 100% missing the point. The point is to not encourage more people to use the tool that gives control to Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. Social stigma and pushback is the point. People use things less when it’s seen as uncool. Normalizing AI use just means it’s going to be used more against your interests
They were not “against technology”, that was the propaganda of the ruling class which still gets repeated today. The Luddites were put down by militarily and violently killed. They didn’t fail because they weren’t publicly supported (they were wildly popular) or weren’t against the social relations (they very much were)
Building frontier AI models cost billions of dollars in capital. Any solution involves raising that kind of money, the forces of the money will be put right back against you. It’s also just as likely to be banned if it’s seen as a big enough threat.
Only a handful of companies make open weight models, and those models are not made for charity. They want either market share and/or control. Making your own model is not like making your own software because the capital cost are extraordinarily high. The masses will not have the billions in funds they would need need to train these models
Unlike open source code, you cannot check what’s actually in the open weight models. Worse still, you can hide things that trigger on very specific words (poison attacks can be intentional by the model maker or put by other actors in the public data). Fine tuning attempts are also no escape from hidden features you don’t even know to look for
This is the kind of arguments people made against the free-software movement in the first place. That it’s somehow more mature to not care about consequences of what we do and how we do it
I think it’s exactly the other way around
The open source software movement was very much founded on the idea of being concerned about what kinds of tools we use as a society. Software that’s “just a tool” can lock you down and out of what you can do with it. Same argument can just as well be made that people were “shying away from using new and interesting tools” by running free software instead of Microsoft’s new priority stuff that locks you in
AI similarly gives massive control to a handful of companies. They have already used that leverage to intentionally sandbag tasks without telling you, when they think it’s against their economic interests (model distillation and AI research). Is it not possible to imagine that goes further, they would use that leverage to slip in backdoor, not report classes of bugs, etc.?
Earlier arguments of yours in other posts is that we should use open models and now you are posting things praising closed-model usage?
If you were wondering why I was saying I don’t think your pro-AI stance is good-faith, it’s exactly things like this