💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29420366 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Part of me is cautiously optimistic. My current belief is that the biggest issue with AI is centralized control, and that open access to and research of AI is the antidote. Given that, as per the article, this new organization is about "community-rooted AI research free from Big Tech's pervasive influence", this suggests that it might be a force for good.
Part of me is more pessimistic. Advocating for restrictions on things like facial recognition and pointing out biases so models can improve are fine goals that I would support, but I'm worried they are going to promote policies more like OpenAI's (overhyping the potential harm of AI, unfair discrimination in who to grant API access to, an insidious amount of arbitrary input/output filters and censorship) under the familiar justification of "ethics". I haven't seen a lot of evidence that said policies do any good, and I've seen quite a bit of evidence that they do real harm.
I agree with user more_corn, this is good news. So many problems are possible with biased data sets, models optimizing only for profit, etc.
The Future of Life Institute has had some good podcasts on AI alignment, etc.
This is great news. We need an external voice of reason and caution in AI research. Google obviously cannot handle having that voice in-house. I’m happy to hear that Timnit’s voice won’t be silenced by her firing.