Basically this : funny

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Remember when Microsoft said open source was dangerous?

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Dangerous?

They said Linux and open source is fucking cancer

And I'm pretty much quoting here - emphasise on just pretty much

[–] AbidingOhmsLaw@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

When all along it was Mico$oft that was the cancer.

[–] Lydia_K@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dangerous to profits. Please think of the shareholders!

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

…and the Billionaires!

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Which was extra rich because Bill Gates was pretty active on open source forums getting help developing his early programs that made MS into what it was, as well as using his school's computers, which weren't supposed to be used for commercial activity, then when he was trying to sell his shit, he was outraged at all the people willing to give their software away for free. He's a personification of the pulling the ladder up after him image.

And he maintains that stance to this day, with one of the goals of his foundation (which he started at the advice of his father wanting to look better after the embarrassment of the anti-trust case where he looked completely out of touch during his testimony and didn't take much comfort that the government pretty much just backed down after winning and didn't force MS to break up) being that someone profits from the medical advancements they support. It doesn't have to be him, but he is vehemently against the idea that anyone just share ideas for everyone's benefit rather than people making profits from it.

[–] MutantTailThing@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do we really need CEOs?

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

making CEOs at home is a very dangerous path

[–] WhiteRice@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

[–] TheIvoryTower@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Pravin Lal???

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

IIRC those open source models are trained on the output of OpenAI and Anthropic's models anyway.

And the plagiarism machine owners complaining about others plagiarizing their plagiarism machine is still one of the funniest things to happen in all of this.

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

How is that actually pulled off? (train on the output of another AI? That would burn so many tokens through the "regular" ways, no?

[–] thatsnomayo@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

Explaining the harmfulness of monopoly & regulatory capture to an American

Imagine at home there is no burger

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why do people even care about what a CEO says anyway? Fuck them. They only care about themselves and say shit that benefits them.

[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 week ago

Well because, see all the dumbasses running around believing that llms can reason, have a personality and replace humans? Thats because dumbass ceos said so. So, thats the only reason I care, currently.

[–] grandma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Okay and what are you gonna do? Geographically restrict an algorithm like they tried with encryption?

[+] danc4498@lemmy.world -15 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

They’re clearly 2 wildly different things. This is more like a weapons manufacturer saying homemade explosives are dangerous.

Open source AI has the potential to be very dangerous.

[–] BucketBong@p.hobo.social 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Everything has the potential to be very dangerous, your cleaning products in your home are potentially very dangerous... The only thing open source AI is a danger to is the owners of these AI companies who have pumped all their money into nvidias pockets and are now sad they won't be able to recoup that monumental loss of profit.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we need to protect the power of the AI companies. But what they’re saying is factually not wrong. AI has the potential to be dangerous. Significantly more than household cleaning products.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You can literally kill everyone in the house by mixing two bottles of household cleaner. Like you're just completely ignoring the physical danger of house stoves and cleaning products, and only counting the theoretical data damage that could be done with AI. How are you gonna physically injure someone with AI from your house??

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Not every kind of damage is physical.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

G-G-G-GHOSTS!!!!

[–] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

You seem to be doing some sort of weird fear mongering... Can you elaborate on what you consider dangerous with AI?

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

And?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That's right, better make sure unaccountable corps of the turd reich are the only ones controlling this tech.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They should be regulated.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

By whom?

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Regulators

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do go on, from which country?

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, my dear boy, all of them should be regulating it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

well good luck with that kiddo, I'm sure it will be as effective as regulation of other types of open source

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's right, better make sure unaccountable corps of the turd reich are the only ones controlling this tech.

Who said anything about regulating open source?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

the whole context of this thread Anthropic wants to ban open source models

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok, but my reply was to your comment not the whole context of the thread.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

when you definitely understand how context works

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, for future reference, be aware of your own comment if you want the context for the reply.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry for expecting a minimal level of awareness here.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

You should start by having it.

[–] noli@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Knives are very dangerous, hence they are only alllowed in industrial kitchens.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Knives and AI are equivalent.

[–] noli@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So is a glorified autocomplete and C4

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Their point is that it is no longer a “glorified autocomplete”. And that’s where you misunderstand the entire point.

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But it's really nothing more than a glorious auto correct. https://youtube.com/shorts/bsl46vGpMNU

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A human brain is a glorified auto correct.

Fact is, the AI that is dangerous is not giving advice about how to get to a car wash. It’s building hacks and scams etc. At a level and scale we’ve never seen before.

I think the lesson that should be taken from this is not that we need to prevent open source AI from coming out. We should recognize that Anthropic is in control of weapons that should be regulated by the government more heavily than it is. And society as a whole should be preparing for the “mythos” style AI to be open sourced. Which is inevitable from the sounds of it.

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

We've had hacks and scams before. AI is just another tool making it easier than before to do it. Doing criminal acts are already illegal. Both with and without the use of AI.

I'm not sure how it could even be regulated. In my view it's probably too late for any societal regulation. AI is open source and anyone can host it at home. I wouldn't mind some regulation for corporations though.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

A human brain is a glorified auto correct.

So then we should all be banned from using it and only megacorps can??

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't see the difference, you can easily burn down your whole house with the stove, the fire can spread through the neighborhood. Yet, just about everyone has a stove. Local AI will be the same

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Their point is the damage you can do with AI will be significantly worse than burning a couple buildings down.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yet to see a point yet that wasn't a nonspecific and unsupported declaration of fact

Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more