Gary Marcus

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -23
4/22/2024, 11:07:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
324d
Open source has also won the argument about security. Everyone (good and bad) finds bugs faster. But on balance, this appear to make software more secure, because there are more defenders than attackers.11/12
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
324d
And even outside of models, open source software has won the argument. Open source means that everyone can innovate faster, so everyone counts on making more money because everyone gets more out of the common ecosystem than they put in.10/12
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
324d
That's why DataBricks debuted (open) DBRX before they IPO'ed - it's critical to their business success because they make money on ALL THE STUFF that gets built on and around a model (especially by them.)9/12
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
324d
So why haven't all these OS/OW models stopped other models in their tracks? Even upstarts like Mistral or DataBricks? Because the foundational LLM just IS NOT the thing that gets sold, and never has been. What all these companies sell is helping you use the LLM.8/12
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
324d
This is because open source or weights had been the norm for a while: it was weird when Open AI made GPT-3.5 closed with a 'safety' rationale that only makes sense if you forget they didn't restrict the use case (misinformation) that they claimed was the motivating risk.7/12
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
324d
A short selected history of open weight/open source LLMs:
BERT: 10/18
GPT-2: 11/18
RoBerta: 07/19
GPT-NeoX 2/22
Llama 2: 7/23
Mixtral 7B: 9/2023
DBRX 3/24
Llama 3 4/24
Open models sure don't see to be impeding development of either open or closed models.6/12

The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about the implications of open-source models in technology, specifically addressing security concerns and the potential misuse by bad actors. The user is engaging in a critical examination of the arguments presented by another user regarding the benefits and risks associated with open-source models, particularly in the context of security and the development of bioweapons.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to raise important concerns without causing harm, focusing on the implications of technology rather than personal attacks. [+2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing solely on the topic without engaging in any form of harassment or derogatory language. [+2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By questioning and seeking further explanation, the statement promotes a deeper understanding of the potential risks associated with open-source models. [+2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The user engages in constructive criticism by asking for clarification and further arguments, avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the issue at hand. [+2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to prompt a discussion on the responsible use of technology, aiming for a betterment of societal understanding regarding open-source models. [+2]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The user responsibly uses the platform to engage in a meaningful discussion about public concerns related to technology and security, upholding the principles of free speech. [+2]