This is really disappointing. I love programming community because they just share or open(-source) their knowledge with an absolute no cost. There's tons of resources about how to build a OS, DB, Apps, etc. I'm curious why would you think differently about AI workflows.
> they just share or open(-source) their knowledge with an absolute no cost.
You need to consider how they were able to do that. For many people, it’s because they had highly paid, secure jobs that essentially funded their open source activity.l, even if only as a side project or personal project. If you take away that security and reliable funding, you destroy the environment that supported people sharing like that.
All of these Skynet-style AI attacks are unrealistic and impractical. What’s worse is that discussing these things distracts from issues that are far more realistic, dangerous, and HAPPENING RIGHT NOW: bad people using AI to do bad things.
Soon people will just prompt "Hack the HuggingFace" with their local models, and you don't need an autonomous agent swarms for that.
Why would a malicious group want to build a self-running LLM hoping it would somehow trigger a nuclear war? They would just prompt to trigger a nuclear war; it's more predictable, faster, and easier to control.
The whole point of the debate is that "those around them" didn't agree to send their so-called "de-identified" data to Apple. In fact, "those around them" had no chance to agree/disagree at all.
LLM is "stochastic parrot next word prediction machine"; it's just that this "stochastic parrot next word prediction machine" have proven to be smarter than most people. I mean, this already happened with AlphaGo too.
I don't understand any of this. If Claude is going to add some patterns (or some probablity distribution) in generated text, how can this not reduce code quality?
reply