I agree with gp. It may not be LLMs, but we will certainly create a technology at some point that can't be openly shared due to existential danger, aka The Great Filter.
We can't just naively keep frolicking through the fields forever, can we?
We have to be able to at least agree on that, theoretically, right?
If we agreed with your premise that AI is a great filter and that this filter can somehow be contained by a small group, then I guess what it boils down to is two choices:
1. either lock everything down and accept the control of a small unaccountable group to dictate the future of humanity according to their morals and views - and I believe that AI will fundamentally shape how humanity will work and think, or
2. continue to uphold the ideas of individual freedom and democratic governance and accept a relative increase in the chance of a great filter event occurring.
I, like many here, am firmly against ggp's position. The harm that our spices sustains from having this technology controlled by the few far outweighs the marginal risk increase of some great filter occurring.
I will continue to help ensure that this technology remains open for everyone regardless their views, morals, and convictions until the day I die.
Let's forget today, and LLMs. Do you see no theoretical future case where a technology should not be shared freely, ever? Even 100 years from now?
The only benefit I can imagine of less players having control of a technology is that there are less chances for them to make a bad call. But when you democratize something you hit the law of large numbers.
Here's a nice video that showcases the same patterns in history and how having free and open tech + breaking monopolies helped move society forward - https://youtu.be/jXf04bhcjbg
Leave us behind whom or what?
I agree with gp. It may not be LLMs, but we will certainly create a technology at some point that can't be openly shared due to existential danger, aka The Great Filter.
We can't just naively keep frolicking through the fields forever, can we?
We have to be able to at least agree on that, theoretically, right?