Gary Marcus

Rank 31 of 47
|
Score 0
4/22/2024, 11:24:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
323d
@GaryMarcus Re: bio weapons: it’s not that there’s no risk, it’s that the risk doesn’t come from LLMs. There are absolutely risks from transformer based models, but language models aren’t going to do much and I think these risks are best managed through physical-world restrictions anyway.
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
323d
@GaryMarcus I think we don’t fully understand the security risk profile of large models, and how much vulnerability is in weights vs. code. History suggests that more open is better, of course! My intuition is that most risk is application-specific, which means code.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
323d
@LauraEdelson2 Does this apply to open-weight models that are not truly open source?

I would also be interested in your arguments re bad actors and potential future bioweapons that you dismiss.
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
323d
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
·
323d
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
·
323d
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

The statement is part of a public discourse on the risks associated with large language models (LLMs) and their implications for security, particularly in relation to bioweapons. The conversation involves a critique of OpenAI's study and engages in a broader discussion about the security implications of open-source models versus closed models, touching upon the potential misuse by bad actors.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to raise awareness about potential risks without causing harm or spreading misinformation, striving to inform and caution rather than alarm. [+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 personal attacks or disclosure of private information. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By discussing the implications of LLMs and security, the statement promotes understanding and invites further scrutiny and discussion, fostering a more informed public. [+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 dialogue is constructive, engaging with differing viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to highlight important security considerations, potentially contributing to better societal outcomes through more informed public policy or technology development practices. [+2]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement responsibly uses the platform to engage in a substantive issue, contributing to the public discourse on a significant topic. [+2]