Gary Marcus

Rank 27 of 47
|
Score 50
4/22/2024, 11:47:55 PM
X
In reply to:
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
95d
@GaryMarcus Also I completely agree there are lots of risks, I just don’t think they are worse for open models.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
95d
@LauraEdelson2 I think there is a LOT of uncertainty but that is part of why I lean more cautiously.

there are oodles of immediate risks, many potentially accelerated by open-sourcing LLMs:
Laura Edelson
@LauraEdelson2
·
95d
@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
·
95d
@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
·
95d
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
·
95d
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

The statement in question is part of a public discourse on the risks and benefits of open-sourcing large language models (LLMs). The user questions the dismissal of risks associated with open models, suggesting that the potential increase in 'bad actors' and their capabilities should not be overlooked. The statement challenges the view that the benefits of open-sourcing outweigh the risks without sufficient argumentation to support such a claim.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to highlight potential harms by questioning the security implications of open-sourcing LLMs, thus aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects the dignity of others by maintaining a focus on the topic without personal attacks or disrespectful language. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The user uses the statement to promote understanding by encouraging a more nuanced discussion of the risks associated with open-sourcing LLMs. [+1]
  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 statement engages in constructive criticism by challenging an existing argument and suggesting that a more balanced view is necessary. [+1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The user acknowledges the complexity of the issue, which aligns with the principle of acknowledging and correcting oversights in the argumentation. [+1]
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    By participating in this discourse, the user uses their influence to contribute to a broader understanding of an important societal issue regarding technology and security. [+1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech responsibly by contributing substantively to the discussion without spreading misinformation or harmful content. [+1]