Tech leaders have been vocal proponents of the need to regulate artificial intelligence, but they're also lobbying hard to make sure the new rules work in their favor.
That's not to say they all want the same thing.
Safety is at the heart of the debate, but so is who gets to profit from AI's advances.
Open-source AI involves more than just code and computer scientists differ on how to define it depending on which components of the technology are publicly available and if there are restrictions limiting its use.
Some use open science to describe the broader philosophy.
Part of the confusion around open-source AI is that despite its name, OpenAI - the company behind ChatGPT and the image-generator DALL-E - builds AI systems that are decidedly closed.
To make his case for open-source dangers, Sutskever posited an AI system that had learned how to start its own biological laboratory.
Even current AI models pose risks and could be used to ramp up disinformation campaigns to disrupt democratic elections, said University of California, Berkeley scholar David Evan Harris.
The Center for Humane Technology, a longtime critic of Meta's social media practices, is among the groups drawing attention to the risks of open-source or leaked AI models.
An increasingly public debate has emerged over the benefits or dangers of adopting an open-source approach to AI development.
The three companies, along with OpenAI's key partner Microsoft, have formed their own industry group called the Frontier Model Forum.
For IBM, an early supporter of the open-source Linux operating system in the 1990s, the dispute feeds into a much longer competition that precedes the AI boom.
Weights are numerical parameters that influence how an AI model performs.
He gave U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo until July to talk to experts and come back with recommendations on how to manage the potential benefits and risks.
This Cyber News was published on www.securityweek.com. Publication date: Tue, 05 Dec 2023 20:43:06 +0000