Reactions from ranked influencers
9 posts
@ziv_ravid Yeah it's crazily (and not surprisingly!) corporate-biased rhetoric. Fortunately, we scientists know better!
If we want to truly build a *science* of intelligence (rather than merely products), open-weights are the *only* viable path forward. Science thrives in the open. Open-weights are therefore inherently *accelerationist*, *not* decelerationist, as this post tries to claim. https://twitter.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412
@BlackHC Having more minds working on the same hard problem increases, not decreases, innovation. It greatly limits the science to be closed:
If we want to truly build a *science* of intelligence (rather than merely products), open-weights are the *only* viable path forward. Science thrives in the open. Open-weights are therefore inherently *accelerationist*, *not* decelerationist, as this post tries to claim. https://twitter.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412
If we want to truly build a *science* of intelligence (rather than merely products), open-weights are the *only* viable path forward. Science thrives in the open. Open-weights are therefore inherently *accelerationist*, *not* decelerationist, as this post tries to claim. https://twitter.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412
@MelMitchell1 Precisely! Science thrives in the open (and society is bettered for it):
If we want to truly build a *science* of intelligence (rather than merely products), open-weights are the *only* viable path forward. Science thrives in the open. Open-weights are therefore inherently *accelerationist*, *not* decelerationist, as this post tries to claim. https://twitter.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412
@chris_j_paxton 馃挴 and good for science too, not only products:
If we want to truly build a *science* of intelligence (rather than merely products), open-weights are the *only* viable path forward. Science thrives in the open. Open-weights are therefore inherently *accelerationist*, *not* decelerationist, as this post tries to claim. https://twitter.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412
Yes true but you also need to be able to spend huge amounts on new training runs and for that to be worth it, you need sufficient margins? Not sure but how do you see these investments happening Most scaling breakthroughs didn't come from academia because it's impossible without larger/dedicated budgets (GPT, Chinchilla, AlphaGo, even DQN) (Only my personal opinions here)