• xcjs@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I was reflecting on this myself the other day. For all my criticisms of Zuckerberg/Meta (which are very valid), they really didn’t have to release anything concerning LLaMA. They’re practically the only reason we have viable open source weights/models and an engine.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Meta launched the latest iteration of its AI chatbot on Thursday with Llama 3, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg says it’s supposed to be really good.

    The new model boasts “state-of-the-art” performance on various industry-standard benchmarks and comes with “improved reasoning,” according to a company blog post.

    “In terms of all of the concerns around the more existential risks, I don’t think that anything at the level of what we or others in the field are working on in the next year is really in the ballpark of those types of risks,” he told the publication.

    It’s one reason Zuckerberg feels that the company can continue making Llama open-source or available for the public or researchers to tinker with.

    If Meta’s model achieves multimodality — meaning the ability to deliver results in various forms of media, including text, images, and video — then that may be a case when the company won’t want to make all aspects of its model open-source, Zuckerberg said.

    "For example, image generation is one that we’re looking at closely Especially in an election year, is that a net positive thing to do?


    The original article contains 314 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      “ooh it’s more advanced but don’t worry- it’s not conscious”

      is as much a marketing tactic as “how it feels to chew 5 gum” or buzzfeedesque “top 10 celebrity mistakes - number 3 will blow your mind”

      it’s a tech product that runs a series of complicated loops against a large series of texts and returns the closest comparison, as it stands it’s never going to be dangerous in and of itself.

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Generative AI and LLMs is not what people mean when they’re talking about the dangers of AI. What we worry about doesn’t exist yet.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I dont think AI sentience as danger is going to be an issue in our lifetimes - we’re 123 years in January since the first well known story featuring this trope (Karel Čapek’s Rossumovi Univerzáiní Robotī)

          We are a long way off from being able to copy virtual perception, action and unified agency of even basic organisms right now.

          Therefore all claims about the “dangers” of AI are only dangers of humans using the tool (akin to the dangers of driving a car vs the dangers of cars attacking their owners without human interaction) and thus are just marketing hyperbole

          in my opinion of course

          • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Well yeah perhaps, but isn’t that kind of like knowing that an asteroid is heading towards earth and feeling no urgency about it? There’s non-zero chance that we’ll create AGI withing the next couple years. The chances may be low but consequences have the potential to literally end humanity - or worse.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      AI can be dangerous. The point is not that it’s likely but that in the very unlikely event of it going rogue it can at worst have civilication ending consequences.

      Imagine how easy it is to trick a child as an adult. The difference in intelligence between a human and superintelligent AGI would be orders of magnitude greater that that.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        An actual AI (that modern tools don’t even vaguely resemble) could maybe theoretically be dangerous.

        An LLM cannot be dangerous. There’s no path to anything resembling intelligence or agency.