Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cool_calm_connected t1_j934hbo wrote

Reply to comment by Circlemadeeverything in UN says AI poses 'serious risk' for human rights by Circlemadeeverything

I disagree. AI will almost certainly be controlled to serve the powerful, and the tyrants, not free citizens.

They are ahead of the curve. They know what's coming, and they are planning ahead with those with power to figure out how to best take advantage of new technologies to serve them.

59

Circlemadeeverything OP t1_j939ye5 wrote

If can be used for either - good or evil. And the powerful and rich can’t contain what they let out of Pandora’s box. At least not forever. Basic technology could already expose a lot of exploitation and abuse. Even the IRS alone could be using it already to find red flags in the rich. It’s a choice not to use tech for Good

But it’s definitely a two edged sword. Usually it’s used for the greedy to exploit and withhold the truth

11

ActuatorMaterial2846 t1_j93i5ce wrote

I actually kind of agree. Transformer architecture isn't the complicated part, it's the nueral networks held by large companies and governments which are very expensive. It's easy to see such tech remaining in the hands of the powerful, but I'm not convinced that's going to be the case in the near future.

There are already proven examples of this technology being completely open source. Stability AI is already leaps and abounds ahead of DALLE-2 for example.

When GPT and chatbots get nerfed, it will drive more people to seek out open source options. DALLE-2 is a locked out system and will likely be a payed platform, yet stable diffusion is open source and utilises a users own backend. I'm not sure big corps will be able to keep up.

However, my concern is the sophistication of the nueral networks that are no doubt classified, most definitely in the hands of government and military.

11

neuronexmachina t1_j95cntq wrote

>However, my concern is the sophistication of the nueral networks that are no doubt classified, most definitely in the hands of government and military.

Makes me wonder how adept the massively-parallel machines the NSA uses to crack encryption are when repurposed for training LLMs and other neural nets.

Or heck, if they secretly have a functioning quantum computer, there's probably some pretty crazy capabilities when combined with transformers/etc.

(I had a link to an article about quantum transformers, but the auto-mod ate it)

2

Circlemadeeverything OP t1_j93ic79 wrote

Nefarious groups seeking military advantages is pretty terrifying.

And her would a.i. expose their plans on the fly? It’ll be a very interesting movie we are in.

1

[deleted] t1_j95aoun wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_j95aovd wrote

Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from Medium.com and similar self-publishing sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Cool_calm_connected t1_j93hxl8 wrote

Those with power will use it to ensure it serves them, imo.

3

Circlemadeeverything OP t1_j93i3f3 wrote

Of course. But those fighting that abuse will also have it. And it in theory may not lie.

2

Cool_calm_connected t1_j940vic wrote

They may not have it.

1

Circlemadeeverything OP t1_j97bkpg wrote

this has always been the case. Until the do have it. Which is alway the case eventually. This is why some are trying to make a.i. open source

1

almightySapling t1_j96k9kl wrote

I swear to god OpenAI released chatGPT as some sort of weird psyops. People are somehow convinced that AI exists for the public and don't at all understand that it's a tool with a cost barrier and like all other costly tools only the rich will have access to the best ones.

2

MeatisOmalley t1_j93pd6m wrote

the technology can be written and run by anybody. AI is not exclusive to any one class. This assessment doesn't really make sense imho. Yes, it will be used to 'serve hte powerful,' but to assume that it will be used exclusively for that purpose, is false.

−1

dont_ban_me_bruh t1_j93yd5n wrote

That is like saying everyone has access to computers; sure, but only the powerful have supercomputers, satellites, datacenters, and police who can kick open your door and take your laptop.

You just have your laptop.

8

MeatisOmalley t1_j9470oo wrote

Yeah, and millions of people have laptops that they can pool together to create a network that rivals the power of a supercomputer. That also ignores the fact that what runs on a supercomputer today might run on a single device in 20 years

−2

Disastrous_Court4545 t1_j94d2eo wrote

How would those millions of laptops form a supernetwork? What limitations would that have? I want your answer to this before i make my statement.

3

MeatisOmalley t1_j94hpmq wrote

this isn't some radical idea. Decentralized networks have been around for decades, but I think you'll be shocked by how much we will be able to do on just local hardware. One of the best AI image generation programs can be run locally on a mid-range computer today, and it only takes a few gigs to install. That's because neural nets are space- and power- effecient, relative to how much they are able to accomplish.

Absolute worse case scenario, a private company has its own servers and sells a product to users. This is already happening with AI, and it will continue to happen. It won't all solely be in the hands of the "powerful." there is guaranteed to be open-source alternatives.

1

Disastrous_Court4545 t1_j94iq2s wrote

You're right that the hardware can handle these models. I'm not arguing that.

What i'm arguing is saying millions of regular computers connected in a single network could rival the processing power of a supercomputer. The limitations of the network cables and network hardware devices aside, the CPUs wouldn't beat a supercomputer unless you somehow connected enough cores into one unit and ran a bunch of stuff using all cores at once. Regular computers can't beat a supercomputer at what a supercomputer is designed to do.

4

MeatisOmalley t1_j94lzt8 wrote

Most supercomputers/servers are just a bunch of nodes/smaller computers running in parallel. The only difference is that they are centralized.

1

Disastrous_Court4545 t1_j94uy46 wrote

Yeah, seems you're right. Then your idea would definitely work.

Too bad the bad actors using large botnets don't use that zombie network for good...

1