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.
Qwen 3.8 27b is now on par with claud fable 5 acording to this benchmark local llms are only a few months behind frontier models and are capable of many things.
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
Your dialectic skills truly know no bounds.
Qwen 3.8 27b is now on par with claud fable 5 acording to this benchmark local llms are only a few months behind frontier models and are capable of many things.