Based on 32 visible X reactions from 66 accounts.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@sriramk obviously doesn't know better, but @ClementDelangue you must know how dumb this take is. what are we doing here. - open-weight ≠ open-source - and even if it did, transparency ≠ security - interp is nowhere near letting "you have the entire world being able to take it apart" mean anything - there's no patch mechanism in OS, so every flaw ships forever on a million hard drives unless users follow-up - fine-tuning access allows people to strip safety training for a couple hundred $ - open models don't have post-release visibility, while at least closed models can monitor and revoke access -...list goes on
@ClementDelangue @sriramk There's nothing more secure than building in the open. Open weights let developers train models in their own environment... doesn't get safer than that!
@ClementDelangue @sriramk The echo in that big empty head of his must be annoying.
@ClementDelangue @sriramk Open weights are inherently secure!
@ClementDelangue @sriramk Open weight are the future.
If we shut down open models, we weaken our ability to defend, and centralize power with a small set of Silicon Valley actors who don't have a lot of peoples' best interests in mind. Attackers are gonna attack either way.
I think what some people misunderstand is that "open" does not mean "anyone can mess with them and affect everyone else". It means they are *viewable*.
Based on 32 visible X reactions from 66 accounts.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
Malicious actors will share malicious uses of AI behind the scenes, and develop risky models in secret, regardless of regulation. Open sharing is critical for *defense* against this.
"Open weights are inherently secure" @sriramk
Truth.