Add to this mix the USA trying to prevent China copying cutting edge AI technology and this was bound to happen sooner or later.
It's no longer research it's near market viability.
The amount of cool stuff people have created on top of Stable Diffusion since it was created is also amazing and would never have happened if they didn't release the weights.
Paintings that look like Pepe the frog?
The resulting storm of new applications was definitely interesting to watch, though none of em were really market viable with that version of the model.
> Now, I don't claim everyone should be forced to publish their AI models. No, if you spent lots of money on training your model it is yours. But you can't lock all your work behind closed doors and call yourself open. It doesn't work like this.
Both of you can be right. Just don't try to call yourself open.
Claiming to be “open” while not actually being open is a feature, not a bug. Just business as usual
ML-tech from the past century seems to work just fine for killing each other (have a look at Ukraine). I would be rather more concerned about the foe having better batteries at this point.
What do you think unlimited funds dumped into AI for military applications can do?
The US KNOWS this is a big deal, so much so that it has destroyed China's ability to conduct top end research.
What more destructive power can AI provide, beyond the already existing drones/biological etc etc?
The machine gun and trench warfare forced the development of the tank.
Once aircraft became military useful, battleships were rapidly vulnerable to aircraft and hence aircraft carriers.
I can imagine replacing naval mines with normally-quiescent remote-triggered torpedoes that are scattered on the seafloor a decade in advance.
How effective are troops against 3D printed drones designed to mimic animals (including birds), but which have a short-range firearm and some computer vision? Or engineered mosquitoes with the bare minimum of remote control, perhaps similar to the "cyborg cockroach" kits that have been on sale for about 9 years now? (Or just weaponise those 'roaches…)
What happens if you can predict what a command officer will say, use an AI to fake a their voice before they've spoken, and interfere with the communications to give misleading orders in the heat of combat? Doesn't even need to be a big change to the orders to alter the outcome.
(Obviously everything I've thought of in 5 minutes, the actual military will have categorised into "haha no" and "let's wargame this scenario"; I assume mostly the former).
(I'm not sure if your reply was a thumbs-up or a serious question, but that's a serious answer).
You do understand that there are nuances here, yes? In other words, that there are military operations that lie somewhere between "do nothing" and "destroy the entire world"?
Kodak had billions-with-a-b of dollars invested in the production of photographic film.
That didn't save them from competitors.
It's reasonable that it's fair use to train on unlicensed, freely available data as long as the model is released. I don't know anything about the law or care much about the legal stuff, but that's my opinion for how it should be.