I really do think this will be the company (or at lease technology) to unseat Google. Ironic that Google unseated Microsoft and now it looks like they will take their throne back.
If the tech were truly superior, we would see Apple, Google and Meta rushing to license their tech. Yet they're not, instead, they're all building their own version. There's no secret sauce left to building an LLM. It's all public knowledge. And while ChatGPT has an edge right now, it's not a substantial one.
oh noes not the terms of service!
Could you share something that you se and think "profound"?
GPT-4 helps me write reams of code every day at my job.
Google tried to beat it with Gemini Ultra, but as well as being unreleased, the stats in the paper don't lend much confidence it will beat gpt-4-0314
Content owners will decide on the price and even who to license to.
Content owners will be asking exorbitant amounts for licensing fees and will likely strike exclusive deals with LLM owners.
Maybe Microsoft actually bought GitHub for the content?
Content owners are moving quickly to monetize their hordes of data. The days of free training data are over. If you don’t own it already, you probably can’t afford it.
I think the interesting side effect is that LLMs will end up as bifurcated as the internet. Each only being trained on some subset of content based on which subset the LLM builder chooses or is able to license for training.
LLM agents will all be hamstrung and biased in various ways based on fragmented training sets.
There will be no singularity.
There will be many LLM agents that learned to think based on the information their creators could afford or chose to provide it.
These agents will have biased, inaccurate and incomplete world views, yet will be very confident they know everything. How very human!
Following which, you will need to learn how to defend against all the internal threats to any such system. ^_^
For your service, here is a limited edition digital flag pin emoji:
Fair enough, but that's not who funded your research (according to your own disclosure, the military paid for it).
If this topic is so useful for "more situations" , why didn't those "many more situations" fund it? Will you be conducting research into how this topic will have non-military usages, or is that just something you tell yourself to sleep better at night while the military pays for more research that "is useful for many more situations than just the military"?
Do you feel bad every time you use a microwave? It was originally a military radar. Without military funding, it would not exist in its modern form. Nor would basically all radio communication technologies, satellites, spaceflight. You get the idea.
I would prefer it if we developed competitive qualities. Trying to stop doesn't make sense, we have to outgrow it.
The new "Gifted And Talented Education" GATE for the modern era.**
We were evaluated for GATE in like 4th grade? Using such AI human behavioral heuristics against the minor population in 3.2.1.... Contract.
So they can be sidelined before they have a chance to disrupt anything.
Especially those individuals having any unique abilities in excess of what AI could substitute for.
In general, all technology can be reused. Maybe someday killer robots walk around with a Rust codebase. Should Rust not have been developed?
Your current government may be risk averse, the one that gets elected five, or fifteen years from now, in a different climate...
Your comparison between this work and Rust is not a good one. There's degrees of potential for abuse, and a system that predicts people's future behaviour in the hands of the military is nothing like a general-purpose language.
The best comparison I can give would be if we were talking about health care and our product was used to schedule nurses shifts or book operating rooms.
It's probably why OpenAI decided to remove the restriction.
Also, for a company that proved it has no governance, I'm surprised they didn't quietly do it anyway and wait until it was discovered.
The weird prejudice in your comment against "non-nerds" and your assertion that they "colonized" the internet and "demanded...evil things" doesn't reflect reality. Knowledge of computer science does not correlate with moral or ethical qualities of character.
[0]https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
Another example is the Occulus guy, that pivoted into levering something VR I guess to make stuff to kill other people since Zuckerberg crushed him.
It is just rebranded not changed in the last 70 years
Department of war was the “army” yes , but army is not what we think of army today, it literally included the entire air force - which wasn’t small auxiliary unit : both wars used tens of thousands of fighter planes .
Department of war was a department for war not just a name for what we know as army today .
…except the Navy and Marine Corps, which was the original point. A large part of the Second World War was fought by the naval services, despite those services being outside the Department of War. During the war, overall coordination of the military was not carried out by the War Department but rather via the Joint Chiefs of Staff and through ad hoc high level coordination between Army and Naval command. In particular, command in the Pacific theater was split between General Douglas MacArthur Admiral Chester Nimitz (with the ground operations under Nimitz being primarily carried out by Marines). The difficulties caused by this approach were the primary motivation for the reorganization of the American military into a unified Department of Defense.
I am well aware that the Army Air Forces were a very large part of the Army during the Second World War. However, the Navy and Marines also had tens of thousands of airplanes, none of which were under the control of the War Department or the Army Air Forces. It’s a little misleading to claim the War Department controlled the “entire air force” when they only controlled the Army Air Forces and not naval aviation.
The War Department controlled the Army and the Army Air Forces, which were part of the Army at the time, so it’s just as correct and a lot quicker to say that the War Department was only in charge of the Army. It wasn’t in charge of the Navy and Marines, and it wasn’t even in charge of fighting wars because we needed the Navy and Marines to help fight wars and they were under a different department. Which, again, was the reason for forming the Department of Defense in the first place.
When the Air Force became an independent service during the postwar military reorganizations, they actually tried (and failed) to take over naval aviation; to this day the United States Navy has a larger air force than most countries.
If the elites can't play nicely with each other it is not my problem. I don't trust them.
or, its just a russian propaganda... Could you please next time start you comments with disclaimer "according to russian propaganda.."?
From your other comment:
> You also had Russians finding a lot of virus labs in ukraine etc.
You understand that no one except russian trolls believes in this lies? On second though I think even russian trolls do not believe in it..
It's inevitable that dangerous real time AI capable of formulating plans are going to be developed for military purposes.
The "OODA Loop" is fundamental to combat. (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Having a tighter and more potent (in the sense of fast and accurate processing) OODA loop is a fundamental advantage. The economics and game theory of military combat is going to result in units which have potent OODA loops which can overwhelm a human being's OODA loop. Once that happens, competition between different sides will result in an arms race going far above that level of capability.
Once the above happens, it's disturbingly likely that instrumental goals will arise in such entities which are dangerous not only to human beings on the wrong side, but to human beings on any side.
It wasn't removed https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/
"And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"
This is Google telling ME to not be evil not Google telling itself to not be evil. Big difference. Its sounds more like "if you see something, say something" snitch culture. That's evil.
I normally have a very dim view of OpenAI/Altman but in this case I wonder if is something akin to a warrant canary, except for 5th generation warfare?
Altman does seem to have a bit of Chomsky in him, so it's not impossible.
For the ignorant (me), what do you mean? I'm guessing SOP is "standard operating procedure" given the military context of this thread, but MIC? No clue.
It's really helpful to just spell out the words, at least the first time.
The topic sometimes puts one into acronym mode :)
(re: acronymfinder - funny enough, though 90% of AI is shit this bit falls into the 10% where it's pretty good at explaining acronyms, i use it often enough with MBA types, the depths of its hidden context are the untapped goldmines)
I think you figured out at least one important factor in this - I forgot about warrant canaries until your comment... So thanks for resurrecting that.
What we should then ask, is for a OpenAI PUBLIC SECTOR Contract Details Dashboard" <-- Meaning, they should be required to show all the "open" AI they have being built on their systems if they want us to have faith in Safe Responsible Humane Alignments?
--
@dylan604:
>* Timelines are much more compressed now*
The Smart hockey-stick :-)
But yeah - and the worse part is not just Corporate competitors, but bad actors, rogue states, triads, ALL the Mafia's/scammers/phishers/ransomers/coin snatchers...
They all benefit at an unprecedented EQUAL rate at this point with the broad spectrum, capability, cost-effectiveness and effectively un-regulated, not-yet-aligned/guard-railed AIs here, in dev, and in near term.
Its got to be an amazing spot if your a top notch cybercrime person in the A-game right now. That, and White-Hat AI-pentesting, and next level security is behind schedule, it seems.
---
Also, I posted this regarding national security status for cloud provider's infra: [0]
In the increasingly interconnected global economy, the reliance on Cloud Services raises questions about the national security implications of data centers. As these critical economic infrastructure sites, often strategically located underground, underwater, or in remote-cold locales, play a pivotal role, considerations arise regarding the role of military forces in safeguarding their security.
While physical security measures and location obscurity provide some protection, the integration of AI into various aspects of daily life and the pervasive influence of cloud-based technologies on devices, as evident in CES GPT-enabled products, further accentuates the importance of these infrastructure sites.
Notably, instances such as the seizure of a college thesis mapping communication lines in the U.S. underscore the sensitivity of disclosing key communications infrastructure.
Companies like AWS, running data centers for the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC), demonstrate close collaboration between private entities and defense agencies. The question remains: are major cloud service providers actively involved in a national security strategy to protect the private internet infrastructure that underpins the global economy, or does the responsibility solely rest with individual companies?
(TBH i also forgot about warrant canaries for a good while. I just threw the question out to myself "what if Altman actually doesn't WANT to be a badguy, what might he have done to signal his Borgification?")
An AI with the capability to be autonomous in any environment, able to plan and execute plans well enough to defeat human opponents, is exactly what the AI doomer POV is rightly afraid of.
They removed it because it's stupid and meaningless.
Oof. It is not AGI, so does not count (sarcasm).