Submitted by stringShuffle t3_127asin in MachineLearning
>Join us in our urgent mission to democratize AI research by establishing an international, publicly funded supercomputing facility equipped with 100,000 state-of-the-art AI accelerators to train open source foundation models. This monumental initiative will secure our technological independence, empower global innovation, and ensure safety, while safeguarding our democratic principles for generations to come.
Frankly EuroHPC has been very good with that. See eg LUMI: https://lumi-supercomputer.eu/lumi-consortium/
collectively "leading the bull" is a much more reasonable approach than trying to stop research across the planet...
Who will administrate access to it?
[removed]
Sounds like a buy signal for $NVDA
Can we just skip some steps and collect worldwide taxes to help train a new government?
Now that's a petition I can stand for.
Democratization of LLMs and its derivatives, is in fact, the AI safe way - Counterintuitive as it may sound to the AI DEI folks.
My first question too. What’s to stop OpenAI from “partnering with” a small startup they “definitely don’t own” and giving them the money/S tier research to monopolize this thing’s use by hitting their priority matrix correctly? Stick said company in Ghana and they can play the 3rd world card too. And if you make that impossible by sharing access easily, I doubt anybody will have enough timeshares to train a Large model. Hope I’m wrong, but I’ve become a bit cynical lately about companies not being greedy bastards
This could be it - true open AI. Maybe this could be the answer to AI alignment and democratising AI - empowering humanity as a whole. Disarming the arms race, and working in cooperation.
I think main idea is to open source whatever trained on this thing.
Open ai want to share their datasets and train new gpt? Well, nice for everyone.
!r/UsernameChecksOut
You're far to intelligent for that handle. No, you're NOT WRONG. What you wrote, is EXACTLY what would happen, because companies are not going to sit on their laurels and watch their opportunity to dominate the world, snatched away without a "fight" (fair or unfair).
You must be new to planet earth. The scenario you imagine, will NEVER see the light of day. If I have to explain that to you, then you're a looo-ng way from home - boyo!
It's kinda ironic there already is an OpenAI and it's exactly the opposite.
Let us hope these initiatives get all the necessary support and that they stay loyal to their foundational concepts.
[deleted]
The possibility of creating an autonomous agent with current level hardware is not as far-fetched as it may seem. A single adept engineer could conceivably construct such an agent by amalgamating insights from disparate papers that have been divulged in the field of artificial intelligence. These papers may contain novel algorithms, techniques, or architectures that could be integrated into a coherent and functional system. Moreover, the open source implements that are available today, such as langchain/flow and pinecone db (or similar), could provide the necessary tools and frameworks to assemble an architecture that is self augmenting and self refining. Such an architecture could leverage the power of distributed computing, natural language processing, and machine learning to improve its own performance and capabilities over time. This could potentially enable the agent to surpass the optimal human capacities at most undertakings, or at least match them.
Please everyone, go through to the link and sign it
You signed it?
Nice. You signed it then?
So you went through and signed it?
I agree with you. Looking at papers like ToolFormer and so on, we are very close.
We are only a couple years away from AGI, which is what I've been saying for YEARS and getting yelled at here. The WaitButWhy article in 2016 was dead right
the AI Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness community (AI Ethics)
[removed]
What's the point, when we know that if it discovers anything revolutionary related to AGI, it'll be locked down, the model will be closed for 'safety evaluation' and will never see the light of day. Nothing 'open' in AI is actually open, as soon as a whiff of AGI arrives.
I see people can't handle the truth (surprise, surprise!). Downvote all you want - it doesn't affect me, and it doesn't change reality either.
Signed in a heart beat
Currently, due to so much vested interest, I am suspicious of "too good" initiatives led by a group of "very virtuous" people with the aim of "democratizing technology".
Doesn’t give me the option of selecting USA in the location area.
Not to be too irreverent but I like that we are exponentially creeping towards realizing Asher’s Earth-Central
Why do you mix openai into it?
> the french will build it
funny here knowing who is behind BLOOM
Let me guess, it's not about any of those things and they're really a lobbying mechanism to engage in protectionism for the industry.
Who will be funding such a initiative?
What? How do you read that from my text?
I think most of them probably cares, just as much I'd asume you and I do, about how the next number of years play out for the benefit of man.
LAION is a reputable group and they care about ensuring that OpenAI doesn't achieve its goal of banning open source AI.
What bothers me is that most researchers don't care to use any model compression or efficiency techniques. They want others to pay for their architectural inefficiencies. IMO such funding could be a bad idea if it were to stop competition of neural architectures, and a good idea otherwise.
For example, is matrix-matrix multiplication necessary or can matrix-vector multiplication do the job? Similarly, are dense networks necessary or can sparse networks do the job? Alternatively the funding can go toward the engineering of optical and analog hardware that is significantly more power efficient.
Plenty of teething pains with LUMI sadly. Maybe some day it will be reliable.
If a corporation were trying to depreciate an open-source alternative to one of their projects, it might look like spreading negative propaganda about the open-source alternative or highlighting the perceived weaknesses of the alternative. For example:
FUD: The corporation may spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) about the open-source alternative, such as by suggesting that it is not secure, reliable, or compatible with other systems.
Highlighting perceived weaknesses: The corporation may highlight perceived weaknesses of the open-source alternative, such as by emphasizing areas where it falls short compared to the corporation's proprietary solution.
Undermining community support: The corporation may attempt to undermine community support for the open-source alternative by spreading misinformation about the project's development or suggesting that it lacks the necessary resources to succeed.
Offering alternative solutions: The corporation may offer alternative solutions that they claim are superior to the open-source alternative, such as by highlighting their own proprietary products or services.
Funding competitors: The corporation may fund competitors who are developing similar solutions to the open-source alternative, with the intention of creating negative publicity or drawing attention away from the alternative.
These tactics can be effective in diminishing support for the open-source alternative, but they can also be perceived as unethical and manipulative, potentially damaging the corporation's reputation and relationship with the open-source community.
Lol they opened up their AI to be trained for free for "research purposes..." Sounds similar to how certain corporations greatly profited from recent current events over the passed couple of years... Wonder if they'll even go as far as calling people some kind of hero for helping them make a bigger profit >.>
[removed]
Origins of Communism without human governance /s
I’m a big fan of open source AI research, but creating a new facility doesn’t seem like the way to go. If you’re making a GPU cluster that has to be shared among a bunch of different academic groups, you’ll have to build resource-sharing software, infrastructure tools, etc, and spend all this money on what is essentially an AWS clone.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to simply give this money to AI research groups and let them buy infrastructure from the most cost-effective provider? If AWS works best, fine, if it’s some smaller infrastructure provider, that’s fine too.
This proposal seems like it would actually divert money away from AI, by spending a lot of money rebuilding the standard cluster infrastructure stuff that cloud providers already have.
I don’t know how they’d go about doing this but there need to be provisions that it can never become a for-profit agency. OpenAI gained traction by doing cutting-edge research and touting it as open to the public (or at least researchers) and then pulled the rug out from under everyone when they struck gold. In case the LAION discovers a new architecture that dwarfs the capability of LLMs, they should never be able to say “ok time to start a company and mint billions now!”.
I'm already getting a little frustrated by how many things promoted as open source use openai. I get that there's some wiggle room with terminology. But it's often on the level of just having a shell script built on top of a binary and calling it open source because you can edit the launcher.
I'm absolutely fine with openai doing its thing. I'm grateful for it in fact. But I really hate how much it's muddying the waters.
>In case the LAION discovers a new architecture that dwarfs the capability of LLMs, they should never be able to say “ok time to start a company and mint billions now!”.
exactly
Yeah good point
Is that you Chad?
I personally feel we need large scale collaboration, not each lab having a small increase. Something like a James Webb telescope or a CERN. If they make a large cluster that's just time shared between labs that's not as useful IMO as allowing many universities to collaborate on a truly public LLM that competes with the biggest private AI organizations.
Disastrous_Elk_6375 t1_jedf0de wrote
This is a great initiative! Let's just hope that it doesn't go the way of that classic joke: the french will build it, the germans will make it funny, the british will teach it about food, etc...