This is why it is critical for true open sources LLMs to continue to be available. Things like this make it clear that the closed models are being built to enforce corporate ideologies and not just 'safety' related issues. How long until these LLMs purposefully start sabotaging competitors? "I'm sorry, but I can't work on that task anymore." As a side note, I wonder if an LLM provider will ever be sued because they promised to deliver, and took payment, but then refused to provide the agreed upon service. You still get charged for tokens even when the model refuses to work. If this was any other service that would not be acceptable.
This is why it is critical for true open sources LLMs to continue to be available.
There's also a huge reason for research and any attempts to claim AGI. The training data is massive and far larger than any single person or even small group can look through. AND we know that the filters aren't always accurate. All benchmark results necessitate a grain of salt. I mean at times Gemini has been "better" than GPT on benchmarks but at the same time was saying that cockroaches will crawl into your penis. But there's plenty of papers showing that accuracy of answers (of any model) highly correlates to the frequency of that information and I think you can prove this to yourself pretty quickly if you ask it some coding questions and try to ask about some more obscure topics. Not that you can't get the answers, but that when you can get them, they are harder to get.
Availability in the accessibile sense is noble, but without cost parity, we'll end up in the same tiered system we have for ad-funded services[email, search], medical services, air travel, food purity, &c.
Does the importance of ideological monopolism transcend market economics?
Comments
This is why it is critical for true open sources LLMs to continue to be available. Things like this make it clear that the closed models are being built to enforce corporate ideologies and not just 'safety' related issues. How long until these LLMs purposefully start sabotaging competitors? "I'm sorry, but I can't work on that task anymore." As a side note, I wonder if an LLM provider will ever be sued because they promised to deliver, and took payment, but then refused to provide the agreed upon service. You still get charged for tokens even when the model refuses to work. If this was any other service that would not be acceptable.
Current trend seems to be that we regulate the AI, not the people who control the AI. We should absolutely regulate the people behind the AI.
One excellent writing: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/12/ai-and-trust....
Neat, introducing a fiduciary to manage the responsibility of broken trust by representatives (of corporations) who field AIs that do harm, good idea.
There's also a huge reason for research and any attempts to claim AGI. The training data is massive and far larger than any single person or even small group can look through. AND we know that the filters aren't always accurate. All benchmark results necessitate a grain of salt. I mean at times Gemini has been "better" than GPT on benchmarks but at the same time was saying that cockroaches will crawl into your penis. But there's plenty of papers showing that accuracy of answers (of any model) highly correlates to the frequency of that information and I think you can prove this to yourself pretty quickly if you ask it some coding questions and try to ask about some more obscure topics. Not that you can't get the answers, but that when you can get them, they are harder to get.
Availability in the accessibile sense is noble, but without cost parity, we'll end up in the same tiered system we have for ad-funded services[email, search], medical services, air travel, food purity, &c.
Does the importance of ideological monopolism transcend market economics?