AI Cheapness Lie, being pushed hard now by big tech
(1) Spend hundreds of millions of dollars on training competitive foundation models
(2) Convince everyone that you’ve found some great tech innovation that now allows anyone to do the same, training their own competitive foundation models at home for $10, and so there’s never a point for anyone to spend big money on training their own foundation models again
(3) This kills investor appetite in investing in training of competing models
(4) By the time they realize the lie, it may be too late, monopolization success.
Why do you think OpenAI is spending nearly half a billion $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ dollars on training GPT-5 right now, as we speak, instead of just $10?
Are they just stupid? No.
AI Cheapness Lie.
(1) Spend hundreds of millions of dollars on training competitive foundation models
(2) Convince everyone that you’ve found some great tech innovation that now allows anyone to do the same, training their own competitive foundation models at home for $10, and so there’s never a point for anyone to spend big money on training their own foundation models again
(3) This kills investor appetite in investing in training of competing models
(4) By the time they realize the lie, it may be too late, monopolization success.
Why do you think OpenAI is spending nearly half a billion $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ dollars on training GPT-5 right now, as we speak, instead of just $10?
Are they just stupid? No.
AI Cheapness Lie.
👍21🔥5💯5❤3
OpenAI Paper: Model evaluation for extreme risks
“Model evaluation for extreme risks should be a priority area for AI safety and governance. There
are many challenges ahead for finding effective evaluations and building governance regimes that incorporate them; we encourage further work in this area.”
Translation: Inside look at the censoring of GPT-4.
Bonus: First glimpses at the governance regimes who will soon unilaterally rule over us.
Paper
“Model evaluation for extreme risks should be a priority area for AI safety and governance. There
are many challenges ahead for finding effective evaluations and building governance regimes that incorporate them; we encourage further work in this area.”
Translation: Inside look at the censoring of GPT-4.
Bonus: First glimpses at the governance regimes who will soon unilaterally rule over us.
Paper
🤬32❤9👍9🙏1🙊1👾1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Sam Altman on Open Sourcing GPT-6
😐15🤬9🤔4👍2❤1👌1
Northern District of Texas: ChatGPT use for generation of legal briefings banned
“While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). “
Link
“While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). “
Link
👍15🤣2❤1🙊1
AI Safety switches to highly-effective tactic of Black Lives Matter, Feminism. Receives signatures from hundreds of top scientists.
(1) Start with a simple core statement, beyond reproach, and whose naive negation sounds terrible, implying that this core belief is what distinguishes your group from the rest.
Black lives matter.
Equality for women.
Avert mankind extiction.
(2) Paint opposition to core statement as horrible people, who obviously must support the naive negation of the core statement.
Are you saying black lives don’t matter? Are you saying women don’t deserve equality? Are you saying that preventing extinction of mankind shouldn’t be a priority?
(3) Then claim that accepting first statement must automatically, logically, imply supporting a mountain of whatever other nonsense your movement later dictates.
Because these top scientists agree with X, that means they’re X-ists, and everyone knows all X-ists also believe Y, so all of these people must believe Y.
(4) Sit back and enjoy watching nearly all being too stupid to even pinpoint where the flaw in the argument began, which was right at the start.
From vacuousness, nothing follows.
Safe.AI Website
(1) Start with a simple core statement, beyond reproach, and whose naive negation sounds terrible, implying that this core belief is what distinguishes your group from the rest.
Black lives matter.
Equality for women.
Avert mankind extiction.
(2) Paint opposition to core statement as horrible people, who obviously must support the naive negation of the core statement.
Are you saying black lives don’t matter? Are you saying women don’t deserve equality? Are you saying that preventing extinction of mankind shouldn’t be a priority?
(3) Then claim that accepting first statement must automatically, logically, imply supporting a mountain of whatever other nonsense your movement later dictates.
Because these top scientists agree with X, that means they’re X-ists, and everyone knows all X-ists also believe Y, so all of these people must believe Y.
(4) Sit back and enjoy watching nearly all being too stupid to even pinpoint where the flaw in the argument began, which was right at the start.
From vacuousness, nothing follows.
Safe.AI Website
👏16👍3🤯2❤1