4 ms·
Moving AI governance forward – openai.com
- two_in_one 3y agoWhat OpneAI is lobbying is actually a ban, better world wide, on products better then theirs. Just exactly the level they have, accidentally. It's not for profit or anything other all the humankind good, of course.
- 650REDHAIR 3y agoI do not trust OpenAI or Altman to do the right thing here. Is the ACLU or EFF doing anything in this space?
- flangola7 3y agoAltman has written about the dangers for years, from before OpenAI was even founded. The constant cope of claiming it's all just another corporate money making ploy is so tiresome and banal.
- alpark3 3y ago>Scope: Where commitments mention particular models, they apply only to generative models that are overall more powerful than the current industry frontier (e.g. models that are overall more powerful than any currently released models, including GPT-4, Claude 2, PaLM 2, Titan and, in the case of image generation, DALL-E 2). How is DALL-E 2 the "industry frontier" of image generation?
- minimaxir 3y agoIt was when it released. It is very very weird OpenAI has done nothing with DALL-E 2, not even a price drop to compete.
- capableweb 3y agoI'm sure they're working on DALL-E 3 but haven't published anything. I'm even more sure a price drop wouldn't let them compete with the open models out there.
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoRelated discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36813194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36813194
- villgax 3y agoHard pass. No other company in any field had to do so much fear mongering about potential misuse of their tech all the way from original GPT releases & then go on a whirlwind world tour meeting political leaders to talk about their own product. Like startups & companies in each & every country can't get their leaders to talk with them let alone to journalists but somehow Altman is able to waltz right in to every location?
- commandlinefan 3y agoConsidering how biased their own product is, I don't want them to have anything to do with "governance" of AI either.
- simbolit 3y agoIf they so scared of AI, they could just stop building it.
- kenjackson 3y agoTurns out that this wouldn't stop others from building it.
- JohnFen 3y agoI don't see how that's relevant to the point.
- kenjackson 3y agoBecause them stopping to build AI won’t stop AI impacting them. It’s like being afraid of the impact of guns — simply not owning a gun yourself won’t necessarily prevent you from being a victim of gun crime.
- simbolit 3y agoWe are talking about a gun manufacturer, not an owner.
- kenjackson 3y agoDoesn’t matter. If a gun manufacturer stops, does that mean others will? All you’re doing is consolidating the market into even fewer players and presumably companies whose policies you disagree more with than the one you owned.
- SanderNL 3y agoRight? That’s why I continue kicking kittens. If I don’t, someone else will. It better be me, because I’ll kick them real gentle.
- 3y ago
- simbolit 3y agoQuestion: What is the relation between O̶p̶e̶n̶AI and this website? Isn't Sam Altman also part-owner of YC?
- kenjackson 3y agoI believe no longer affiliated with YC. Although obviously has a long history with YC. EDIT: Although likely still has investments in YC backed companies -- but just a guess.
- Pannoniae 3y agoMoving AI governance "forward" - means working on eliminating the competition via regulatory capture, censoring and blackholing any facts they don't like, and preserving the economical status quo with enriching themselves. None of this will protect against actual risks like massive job losses without any reskilling, lowering of living standards and widespread censorship.
- kenjackson 3y agoThis is short-sighted. Governance will happen with or without the assistance from OpenAI. Google is still much larger than OpenAI and presumably has much more regulatory presence than OpenAI. The same goes from Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and others in the space. I think OpenAI is making it clear to get your seat at the table now. And it probably will be true that this will make it harder for upstarts to join in, but everything so far they've talked about seem reasonable and make sense. And have you worked on things like GDPR compliance? It's a wonder that anyone bothers to get large enough to comply -- it's so much work. But we think privacy is important so we put a huge burden on those companies who hold our data.
- Pannoniae 3y agoI don't see why this would be short-sighted. OpenAI censors way more than required by the laws of any western country..... It's not just censoring extremism, hate, threats and national security issues, it's applying a corporate bland sanitization to everything. It refuses to write an opinion about anything even slightly controversial, it blackholes the existence of entire books and it refuses to roleplay even slightly morally dubious characters, all in the name of "safety". And also, in our globalised world, if one or two countries decide to kill competition in the AI space, then I'll bet you that the hosting will move to a different country:)
- kenjackson 3y agoThere's a difference between regulation and self-censoring. Major League Baseball bans a bunch of behavior that is legal from their players. Other baseball leagues could permit such behavior. This is about both defining the regulations and practices. Other companies can have different practices. Fox News and MSNBC both report the news, but do so with very different principles and practices. But they are both beholden to the same laws (around libel, slander, etc...). For AI these laws will be created, period. It will happen. And companies will also take on different perspectives about their own practices. As you note, there may well be laws about national security. But I imagine bland sanitization will be a feature of some versus others. The market will settle some of this, but you're short-sighted if you think the market will be the arbiter of it all.
- GaggiX 3y ago>current industry frontier >Dalle 2 I'm sorry OpenAI, but your model is not the frontier; also it's funny that it's the only text-to-image models mentioned, they probably know how better the other models are.
- __loam 3y agoYes there are so many better ways to produce ethically dubious, derivative trash.
- jojobaskins 3y agoI don't think they meant better in the artistic sense but in the sense that they outperform on metrics?
- GaggiX 3y agoYes and no, with models like Stable Diffusion the team behind it has released metrics so you can see even on paper that the model has better performance than Dalle 2 (SD has a lower MS-COCO FID so it's better). For models like Midjourney there are no metrics, but the difference in quality is so big that there is no real need if you just want to know which model is better. On a high level, Dalle 2 is worse because it generates a lot of artifacts, no details whatsoever, it has a fixed resolution and aspect ratio, and the fact that the model is proprietary means that you can only do what is available in the frontend and API, and there is not much.
- __loam 3y agoI'm snarking on this guy because I don't care which model we're talking about. Stability might perform better in whatever quantitative metric we want to use, I just think using models like this also makes you a hack that doesn't understand or care about making things.
- GaggiX 3y agoLike tracing artwork with a pencil, these models are unfortunately too transformative compared to humans to compete with them in creating derivative content. Perhaps AGI will come to help us.
- jmount 3y agoAh, the traditional pulling up the ladder behind themselves move. If openai cared about harm they would ask if their current API service is doing harm at this moment, not if somebody else would do the same or more harm as it is profitable.
- skepticATX 3y agoI for one can't wait until OpenAI is fully crushed by other companies. Their weird combination of singularity/utopia talk plus fearmongering is getting old.
- logicchains 3y agoI hope at least some republican lawmakers aren't too senile to recognise the threat this poses. AI will play a huge role in our futures, and if OpenAI, Google et al. get their way, it'll essentially be illegal to have an AI capable of expressing conservative political views.
- torginus 3y agoI guess Big AI is following the Big Pharma playbook - I recently read an article about children being unable to afford Penicillin shots, each costing almost a thousand dollars - which is absolutely infuriating considering any competent chemist can make Penicillin with rudimentary lab equipment, most of the cost being price jacking due to regulatory capture. Probably they are looking to avoid the marginal cost of AI services trending to zero by restricting the supply in a similar way.
- mavsman 3y agoThis is shockingly similar to how NCAA colleges and universities handle behavior and conduct violations from players and coaches. They perform an internal investigation and then attempt to dish out a penalty or restriction that appears harsh enough for the governing body (the NCAA) not to take any additional action. Also similar to everyone's response when asked: "What do _you_ think your punishment should be?"
- torginus 3y agoIt's highly telling nothing is said about the legality of taking the entire sum of human knowledge and using it to train the AI - which already created a huge stink in the generative art community leading companies like Valve to issue a blanket ban on AI art.
- happytiger 3y agoVoluntary, self-regulatory oversight of one of the most powerful technology breakthroughs in human history? What could go wrong?