Mind and marketshare are currency in this space. Either these people are honest and deserve your trust and business, or they don't. They've been mischaracterizing the way they've been handling your data. Shut them off accordingly until they make things right.
I mean, it's just basic access control. You don't need to trust every program you run with 100% of all your personal/private information, just confine it to a specific domain accordingly.
I'm fine with certain codebases and configs being shared, but not others, hence the sandbox/container recommendation. I suspect many others are the same way.
It's less about access control and more about corporate behavior control. When you ask a contractor to come fix something about your home, you don't have to clarify to them that they shouldn't also be snooping around the bedroom drawers and taking pictures to be stored somewhere.
You shouldn't have to go and create zero-trust environments for things to operate in because tech companies can't be trusted to be honest and transparent about how they handle your data. It should be a given that they're up-front about what they do with it within the various terms and licenses, and easy to enforce those terms.
Those that cannot behave in such a way should get exactly zero of your business, even if the product is free and you can set up ways to block any sort of intrusions.
I could not agree more. The rise of sandboxing reflects a decrease in trust. Not just in AI. You just don’t download stuff from the internet anymore. It does not matter who created it, or whether it is open source. There is too great a possibility that the package has been blessed with either incompetence or malice by its creators or contributors.
I hope nobody thinks that software produced by these obviously immoral sociopathic corporations should be exempt from such suspicion, when history shows time and time again with news stories like this that they do not deserve such trust.
Because a harness can more easily stop backdoors of a model. A packaged app on the other hand ... let's say I'll skip this until I can compile and package it.
This is a natural follow up question -- what kind of an escalation or message should frontier labs/companies publish to be seen as genuine and not marketing gimmick?
I'd say it's almost impossible at that point. Specifically, Altman said so many lies in the past that people stopped believing anything he says.
I think the core of this distrust is the fact that these companies positioned themselves against humanity from the start by saying people will lose most jobs etc. Not only it didn't happen, but many people feel several aspects of their lives got worse because of LLMs, in spite of obvious advantages. So the distrust and reluctance are real.
It's fine for the labs to publish model safety cards and stagger releases/limit it to a narrow test group as they are already doing, but saying they're doing it "because the models could be dangerous" comes off as unnecessary as best.
One of the main purposes of model cards, from the beginning, has been to outline the ways that a model could be harmful or dangerous, and mitigations that can be or have been taken to reduce those risks. How do you expect labs to publish model cards without talking about this rationale?
What? So it’s fine for them to be concerned about the safety, try to measure it, publish results about it, start with a cautious phased release approach, basically all the things they’re doing.
But if they say why they’re doing all those things, it’s too much? What?
I dont think they can, their rhetoric is so silly these days that if they did accidentally release something dangerous no one would believe them. The Boy who cried Rokos Basilisk I guess.
These chicken littles have lied far too many times in far too extreme ways in their desperate attempts to obtain a monopoly by regulation.
The remaining 'worthwhile message' would be that they have deleted their models and are dissolving the company, because they believe the risk was too great and was worth losing the revenue and risk being civically prosecuted by their investors, and will take the chance that they'll be able to convince a court/jury that they acted properly.
In other words, putting their own skin on the line for the veracity of their claim-- rather than everyone elses.
So the people who tried to kick him out of the company now have a bunch of vague statements like there being "a pattern of behavior related to his honesty and candor". No other details. What a crushing indictment.
reply