Gregory's ServerI did not sign this statement, tho I agree “open” AI is not the enemy of “safe” AI
I can't endorse its premise that “openness” alone will “mitigate current+future harms from AI,” nor that it’s an antidote to concentrated power in the AI industry 1/
|
6 comments
As coauthors & I show (paper👇), “open” AI can, in some forms, ensure transparency+ reusability+ extensibility. This is good. But it *does not* level the playing field in the concentrated AI industry: the resources needed to create/deploy AI remain in the hands of a few firms. 3/ Nor does openness necessarily reduce harm, in a context where the resources required to create/deploy AI at scale remain concentrated in the hands of a few corps. Indeed, as in the case of Meta, "open" AI (like FOSS beofre it) can be leveraged to extend market dominance. 4/ Again, "open" AI does good things. BUT any meaningful social benefit from “open” AI will only be possible if we ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY reduce concentrated power of the AI industry. & any proposal that leaves this unsaid risks ramifying, not alleviating, current BigTech dominance. 5/ Paper referenced above, here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4543807  |
This is esp true in an ecosystem where the term “open”, in the context of AI, has no clear definition, leaving it ripe for abuse + instrumentation by firms like Meta (who signed on + are currently brandishing this same statement to promo their ersatz "open" AI offerings). 2/