get past there built in kneejerk reaction to anything AI related
Maybe because it’s not kneejerk. We know how AI works, what it takes to have it running, how it was built, who controls it. For many people, the ends do not justify the means (and that’s if we assume fixing CVEs on Linux is somehow worth the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway).
A plane’s wings are burning and it’s heading towards a mountain, opposite way to the nearest airport. Need a time machine to figure out what’s about to happen?
I asked you to provide specifics about the future that AI is leading us towards, not a summary of the early 21st century. However, I understand how the question could have been confusing to one such as yourself who swims in the steam of prescience.
Or, if we must stick to metaphor, where is AI in this airplane?
Some people seem to be unable to fathom the fact that AI can be useful in some circumstances, always assuming the worst despite no evidence to suggest it.
And the point is that this statement can be true AND we can still think AI should cease to be used. The “useful in some circumstances” benefit does not justify the ethical and environmental cost.
Legislate AI away, except for the already existing open models that run on consumer-grade GPUs and are therefore orders of magnitude weaker and can’t be used to break down any systems.
Or penalize heavily any company developing a model that is subsequently used to invade a system, stopping this madness of separating the models from the operators of said models.
Yes, because that has worked so well in the past for alcohol, cannabis, homosexuality, or nuclear proliferation.
existing open models that run on consumer-grade GPUs and are therefore orders of magnitude weaker and can’t be used to break down any systems.
This class of models is already perfectly capable of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software, and is within spitting distance of the frontier.
Or penalize heavily any company developing a model that is subsequently used to invade a system.
Yeah, that case will be on the docket right behind U.S.A. vs Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon surely.
Do you seriously believe any of these are within the realm of possibility, or even believability?
Yes, because that has worked so well in the past for alcohol, cannabis, homosexuality, or nuclear proliferation.
A list of examples where prohibition didn’t work is quite far from an argument that it never works, Plato. Leaded gasoline, CFCs, asbestos, DDT, should I go on?
This class of models is already perfectly capable of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software, and is within spitting distance of the frontier.
If you think frontier models are close to Qwen running on your 5090, you’re completely devoid of any knowledge on the subject and therefore this discussion becomes meaningless.
Your examples of prohibition and mine are not the same. Mine were purposefully chosen because they are or were contentious, just like AI is now.
Your examples, on the other hand, outline situations where we were using something harmful that we did not realize at the time was harmful. Once that realization came to light, everyone agreed to stop. If you want to say this is the current situation with AI, then that’s coherent. This is my olive branch to you.
As for local models if you want to maintain that DSv4.1, GLM-5.3-f, M-3.1, or ther ilk are not near frontier-level. Then, I guess you are allowed to be wrong.
As for local models if you want to maintain that DSv4.1, GLM-5.3-f, M-3.1, or ther ilk are not near frontier-level. Then, I guess you are allowed to be wrong.
I have softened very VERY slightly on AI code. If it can identify genuine issues than that is fine. It is when folks just trust it blindly and just send 50 commits without understanding a thing or even remotely testing it, that is just crazy. But then on the flip side, yeah all the other issues probably aren’t worth it.
It is complicated at times but then things like this always are. The most successful evil always has some claim to virtue.
Alas, occasionally you have to walk with the devil to achieve some good. One just has to weigh up if it is worth it.
I once asked Stallman about how he used to build and run GNU tools before having the Linux kernel. He was using a proprietary Minix system as a means to get work done until there was a better alternative. I mean running a proprietary system is one thing, burning through the amazon with 100 quintillion tokens is very different.
Maybe because it’s not kneejerk. We know how AI works, what it takes to have it running, how it was built, who controls it. For many people, the ends do not justify the means (and that’s if we assume fixing CVEs on Linux is somehow worth the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway).
Please Mr. Time Traveller. Tell us about the future.
A plane’s wings are burning and it’s heading towards a mountain, opposite way to the nearest airport. Need a time machine to figure out what’s about to happen?
I asked you to provide specifics about the future that AI is leading us towards, not a summary of the early 21st century. However, I understand how the question could have been confusing to one such as yourself who swims in the steam of prescience.
Or, if we must stick to metaphor, where is AI in this airplane?
Some people seem to be unable to fathom the fact that AI can be useful in some circumstances, always assuming the worst despite no evidence to suggest it.
And the point is that this statement can be true AND we can still think AI should cease to be used. The “useful in some circumstances” benefit does not justify the ethical and environmental cost.
What would your preferred outcome in this situation be then? The bad guys are going to use AI to find exploits. What should the good guys do?
Dollars to donuts says they don’t have a preferred outcome, or at least not anything that amounts to more than wishful thinking.
It’s crazy how many people have only reactionary opinions that are largely divorced from reality when it comes to humanity’s relationship with AI.
Legislate AI away, except for the already existing open models that run on consumer-grade GPUs and are therefore orders of magnitude weaker and can’t be used to break down any systems.
Or penalize heavily any company developing a model that is subsequently used to invade a system, stopping this madness of separating the models from the operators of said models.
Why on earth would the whole world agree to that while the economic incentives (to name just one) to do exactly the opposite are so high
Yes, because that has worked so well in the past for alcohol, cannabis, homosexuality, or nuclear proliferation.
This class of models is already perfectly capable of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software, and is within spitting distance of the frontier.
Yeah, that case will be on the docket right behind U.S.A. vs Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon surely.
Do you seriously believe any of these are within the realm of possibility, or even believability?
Thank you for doing this for me.
No problem. Any time!
A list of examples where prohibition didn’t work is quite far from an argument that it never works, Plato. Leaded gasoline, CFCs, asbestos, DDT, should I go on?
If you think frontier models are close to Qwen running on your 5090, you’re completely devoid of any knowledge on the subject and therefore this discussion becomes meaningless.
Your examples of prohibition and mine are not the same. Mine were purposefully chosen because they are or were contentious, just like AI is now.
Your examples, on the other hand, outline situations where we were using something harmful that we did not realize at the time was harmful. Once that realization came to light, everyone agreed to stop. If you want to say this is the current situation with AI, then that’s coherent. This is my olive branch to you.
As for local models if you want to maintain that DSv4.1, GLM-5.3-f, M-3.1, or ther ilk are not near frontier-level. Then, I guess you are allowed to be wrong.
lol
I have softened very VERY slightly on AI code. If it can identify genuine issues than that is fine. It is when folks just trust it blindly and just send 50 commits without understanding a thing or even remotely testing it, that is just crazy. But then on the flip side, yeah all the other issues probably aren’t worth it.
It is complicated at times but then things like this always are. The most successful evil always has some claim to virtue.
Alas, occasionally you have to walk with the devil to achieve some good. One just has to weigh up if it is worth it.
I once asked Stallman about how he used to build and run GNU tools before having the Linux kernel. He was using a proprietary Minix system as a means to get work done until there was a better alternative. I mean running a proprietary system is one thing, burning through the amazon with 100 quintillion tokens is very different.