this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
36 points (87.5% liked)

Technology

2547 readers
560 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

[email protected]
[email protected]


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The paper [PDF], which includes voices from numerous academic institutions and several from OpenAI, makes the case that regulating the hardware these models rely on may be the best way to prevent its misuse.

Fuck every single one of them.

No, restricting computer hardware is not acceptable behavior.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Explain to me why you would not want a kill switch?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because it's insane, unhinged fear mongering, not even loosely connected to anything resembling reality. LLMs do not have anything in common with intelligence.

And because the entire premise is an obscene attempt to monopolize hardware that literal lone individuals should have as much access to as they can pay for.

The only "existential threat" is corporations monopolizing the use of simple tools that anyone should be able to replicate.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Companies like OpenAI are only engaging in these discussions to engage in regulatory capture. It does look odd that OpenAI’s board got rid of Altman for ethical concerns, he launched a coup to usurp them, then started implementing dubious changes such as ending their prohibition on war use. After letting Altman run amok, people on OpenAI’s payroll (the researchers) believe that the regular consumer’s access to LLMs need either a remote control kill switch or should require pre approval from a yet to be determined board of “AI Leaders”