The paper explains absolutely everything as if it was a tutorial "how to made your own modern agentic LLM". They even tell how they made their dataset. <a href="https://aleph-alpha.com/downloads/tech-report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://aleph-alpha.com/downloads/tech-report.pdf ; It's the first time I see this level of openness.
Be cautious what you wish for. Tools don't tell you what to do with them.
Open source LLMs "democratize" access to the "intelligence booster" that is AI. But while that has several benefits, it also has several downsides.
Humanity has the serious problem of being underdeveloped in the "spiritual" department. Ethics is often considered some sort of lifestyle choice, but it's actually the difference between order and chaos in a society.
Everybody being able to do anything means somebody will be able to do something you don't like. At an arbitrary scale.
Of course openness is only worse than leaving everything under the control of a select cabal of you believe that cabal to be more ethical than the rest of us.
"Why is the wheel not okay to gatekeep but the nuclear bomb is?" Even the framing is manipulative from the beginning. By asking this question you're already assuming they're in any way comparable. They are not even remotely equivalent and the entire comparison is utterly absurd.
AI is more like a nuke than a wheel. Do you disagree? Can you suggest a less manipulative framing? I am personally a proponent of open source AI and models but I found this cabal framing strange when we do indeed rely on this kind of control for other world-altering technologies. And AI is different in that it enables technological development in ways quite unlike the wheel in a general sense.
AI is more like the wheel (can be used for anything) than the nuke (purposeful weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction), and there's more than two categories, so there's no need to prove proverbial Godwin's law by appealing to extremes. But I still can answer the ridiculous question about incomparable things with as much good faith as I have for it: gatekeeping a generic tech in advance based on ridiculous hypotheticals is ridiculous. That's a charitable interpretation, there's also uncharitable one: that it's nonsensical drivel made up by malevolent cranks that benefit from this strawman being used in public discussions.
>AI is different in that it enables technological development in ways quite unlike the wheel in a general sense.
The wheel already enabled almost every tech. Without the wheel nothing you see around yourself would be possible.
miellaby · · focus · HN ↗
ofjcihen · · focus · HN ↗
It’s seemed crazy to me that anyone thought these could stay closed or even SHOULD be closed source.
Loquebantur · · focus · HN ↗
Open source LLMs "democratize" access to the "intelligence booster" that is AI. But while that has several benefits, it also has several downsides.
Humanity has the serious problem of being underdeveloped in the "spiritual" department. Ethics is often considered some sort of lifestyle choice, but it's actually the difference between order and chaos in a society.
Everybody being able to do anything means somebody will be able to do something you don't like. At an arbitrary scale.
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
skinfaxi · · focus · HN ↗
edit: why is the parent rationale sensible for AI and not nuclear technology?
orbital-decay · · focus · HN ↗
skinfaxi · · focus · HN ↗
orbital-decay · · focus · HN ↗
skinfaxi · · focus · HN ↗
orbital-decay · · focus · HN ↗
>AI is different in that it enables technological development in ways quite unlike the wheel in a general sense.
The wheel already enabled almost every tech. Without the wheel nothing you see around yourself would be possible.