back
50 comments
I continue to find Mark impressive. I think there's something quite true about the "trying to create God" remark.
Only the guy not leading says stuff like this. You can be sure he’d be up there convincing Congress that moats need to be built for his competitors and building opaque systems if fortune favored differently.
From a cynical atheist point of view he's not wrong:

- god is an imaginary construct used to rationalize data points

- god is often used by humans to make decisions, whether backed or not by data

- god is overhyped

substitute "god" with "AI"

Except that if you go beyond the title and read the actual quote, it's not what he said.
He also finds himself impressive. I believe his actual quote was “they’re trying to create me”.
This is not what he said:

> Zuckerberg took a moment to disparage the efforts of unnamed competitors who he sees as less than open, adding that they seem to think they’re “creating God.”

> “It’s almost as if they kind of think they’re creating God or something and … it’s just — that’s not what we’re doing,”

Small but important nuance. The title makes it seem like they Zuck is saying AI is God, while what he actually said is dismissing AI as a god.

Heh, I've watched too much science fiction.

All I can imagine is Zuck in a giant server room filled with blinking lights.

Colossus: Tell them I am not a god

Zuck: AI is not a god

Colossus: You have extended your existence by another day

We are getting closer and closer to several anime timelines.
From the interview, Zuckerberg was saying the opposite of the idea that we are nearing a dystopian God-AI timeline. He was saying that other AI companies were trying to create a god AI, but that this likely wouldn't be the case realistically. He seemed to be closer to saying that AI companies were overconfident in their beliefs in the possible competitive advantages of their own models.
Which ones if I may ask?
Steins Gate
Serial experiments Lain

Tbh

Maybe ghost in the shell too, I could see an AI seeking asylum somewhere that will protect it from being lobotomized in the name of corporate brand “safety”.
The last thing I say as I am subsumed into the God AI complex will be

tuturuu~

We are not. Would be cool though in some aspects!
The analytics and insights they'll generate alone, citing most of these Ai tools are harvesting based on Google accounts, will be staggering in hindsight. By using Ai tools, so many people are surrendering volumes of data that are so much more invasive than Social Media ever could be. As Chat GPT gets integrated into many services, they'll be enabled to build a far deeper profile on everyone that registers, and even a lot of data on people that don't register on the service.

I think we need to establish prominent technical leadership/chief advisor positions within the White House and each chamber of Congress now to be able to establish ethical baselines and oversight before tech managed by private companies turns even more predatory upon public data (Similar to The Surgeon General's Role in authority perhaps)... There should already be solid ground rules for operation and oversight of Ai development efforts in place to control the egos of the people that will have access to all of this user data, those types almost always exhibit God complexes without any real accountability nor responsibility, because most of the people that legislate have no clue of what they can see on the backend.

For example alone, if we though insider training was bad, just imagine how toxic it's going to get when Ai development employees, or a product owner has access to every aspect of social, economic, and business moves of every single company and individual that uses tools integrated across Chat GPT and similar services, including Email and MS Office (without anyone really knowing their data is easily accessible)... It's not a bright future for fairness and equity at all, and there will be far more oligarchs and monopolies than there are now.

I would agree. AI is the machine god realized. Not by virtue of its capabilities, but by the agency people hand off to it. Whether it be creative tasks or just planning their activities, I see more people rely on AI for more decisions. They don’t want to think about something, so they have an AI choose for them. One could argue Top 10 lists and Guides already did this, but for those it was limited to certain aspects and tailored by a human. People are so afraid of making the wrong choice, they would rather not make one at all. LLMs in particular are ready and eager to make a choice for you about almost anything.
"Decision paralysis" in my opinion is proximate to the fear of being responsible for something or doing any real work.

Also, a favorite technique of procrastinators / opportunists.

This doesn't appear to be what Zuckerberg was meaning. He was saying in the interview that he thought that closed-source AI companies were trying to create a singular AI that would be like the God AI, which would be superior to all other competing AIs, not that some users rely so much on AI now that it is like a personal god.
> LLMs in particular are ready and eager to make a choice for you about almost anything.

Wat. They're still just highly advanced auto-correct, and aren't eager to do anything. Sure some users might be eager to delegate the decision to them...

Of course they don't have real agency. Its a figure of speech.
Well, some people think they're conscious. I couldn't tell from your comment whether you're part of that "some".
The only thing the AI bubble is creating are fantastic returns for the nVidia stockholders. The rest is hot air.
I get legitimate value from ChatGPT on a daily basis. Writing quick one-off regex expressions, or JavaScript to scrape/filter something from a page I'm on (just did that one last night), or to write an ffmpeg command where I can just describe what I want in plain English instead of the old method of cobbling together commands from StackOverflow.

I don't expect it to do anything innovative for me, but it sure saves me time on mindless boring tasks I've done hundreds of times and are much quicker to just describe in English to an LLM.

> unnamed competitors who he sees as less than open

Real subtle lol

I’m glad Anthropic is having success with their latest model. So it is at a minimum a two horse race

see, this guy gets it
Because Zuck's AI is so open
Wait, but... it is.

Am I missing something, or inferring sarcasm where there is none?

the model is available but that doesn't make it open source. That makes it model-available, or open weight, which means you can run inference on your machine, but for it to be considered open source, we'd need to know the dataset's name, the annotations on it, and the code used to train the model.
Isn't his also closed src?
seriously? meta llm's are on huggingface and you can download and run them on your machine along with the weights
Open source != open weights != open training set.

Of course, GP is ignoring that Meta is far more open than its direct competitors (MSFT, GOOG, OpenAI).

I agree that open source or just “open” is the wrong term here although it’s hard to apply it even to a project where the training data and everything else are shared. “Free” or “libre” might be closer since the end product is free to use and modify. It’s still fuzzy though, are weights code or are they an API? Oddly enough they seem to be the embodiment of the interchangeability of code and data perhaps due to neural networks being closer to mathematics than software normally is.
just putting weights on hug is not enough for a model to be open. it is like sharing the binaries of a software.

they should put their entire code on github and show how it was trained, architecture and everything else.

also, the most important thing about a model is not it's architecture, but the dataset it was trained on. that is the "it" in a model.

I'm not in the game, so pardon my ignorance, but is there any company that released the dataset the model was trained on for LLMs? To my understanding, it will lead to never-ending lawsuits due to grey areas as soon as they're released, and no company actually wants to go through that pain.
I am not sure why people keep pretending like this is possible or keep asking it to happen.

You know that distributing all the data would be illegal copyright infringement, right? Also, its not like they could distribute the (petabytes?) worth of data to every rando who asks.

Do you just not want open weight models to exist, and you are using a fake call for it to be more open, so as to get this stuff all shut down, or what?

Because anyone who actually supports open "anything" would understand this, instead of pedantically arguing about the definition of open source and by suggesting things that both aren't possible and would make the release of these models much less likely.

The preferred form for modifying an ML model is the weights.