Many users support the researcher's urging of open-weight LLMs for societal benefit because it advances open science, while some criticize the post for lacking plans addressing AI consequences and for its self-deprecating tone.
Based on 6 visible X reactions from 8 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@MelMitchell1 Missing: (3) Here is my plan to deal with the consequences of everybody having unrestricted access to the most powerful AI and there being no capability to even monitor much less regulate the uses of AI agents whether for illicit or legal purposes that may have huge impacts:
@MelMitchell1 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Some of us definitely care what you think, including those of us who have read your excellent book.
@MelMitchell1 Precisely! Science thrives in the open (and society is bettered for it): https://x.com/aran_nayebi/status/2078543386932289755
@MelMitchell1 Hey, what's with the self-deprecation? X is not the place to see if people care what you think.🤛
@aran_nayebi @MelMitchell1 And ofc. open code research papers
@MelMitchell1 we need all the support we can get :)
In the off chance than anyone cares what I think on this topic: (1) the open-source software movement has been enormously beneficial to socity (2) open-weight (& better, open-data) LLMs will be essential for understanding this technology & for it to be beneficial to society.
Many users support the researcher's urging of open-weight LLMs for societal benefit because it advances open science, while some criticize the post for lacking plans addressing AI consequences and for its self-deprecating tone.
Based on 6 visible X reactions from 8 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.