S1: Hey what's up? So I'm going to try to do
S1: something pretty difficult here. I'm going to try to explain
S1: why I, as somebody who is like free all the information,
S1: free info and books for everyone, kind of like no
S1: restrictions on information, no restrictions on technology, kind of like
S1: an open, like quasi communist type view, not even communist,
S1: more like hippie type view of like information should be
S1: free open libraries, no governments or corporations controlling what we
S1: can or cannot do or can or cannot read. Why
S1: would someone like me who has those views, be in
S1: support of controlling, in some small degree the rollout of
S1: AI models and specifically around open source models, which is
S1: kind of being discussed all the time. So a lot
S1: of this is sort of heated up right now because
S1: of Dario Amodei, the CEO of anthropic. And like his
S1: testimony of being like being cautious of open source models
S1: in my community is cybersecurity. So we are a skeptical bunch.
S1: Like when we hear things like that, like some billionaire
S1: is talking about, you know, you got to be careful
S1: with those open source models. It's like, well, yeah, they're
S1: competing against you. You make a closed source model, like
S1: the natural sort of good, honest response to that is
S1: to be skeptical, right? And I'm skeptical of it as well.
S1: But I think that there is another angle to this,
S1: which if you're not super cynical about it, you can
S1: maybe think about the possibility that he is actually concerned
S1: is actually a safety person. And in fact, that's what
S1: his PhD is in and that he maybe has a
S1: different argument. He has good reasons for this, which are
S1: separate from, I'm sure, also having an inclination of like
S1: wanting to win, wanting to have the best model, wanting
S1: to make the most money, etc. so I think both
S1: can be true at the same time. But what I'm
S1: going to try to do is not describe to you
S1: what Dalio believes. A whole separate talk show. And I've
S1: got a whole site called dario.ai. I also have one
S1: called samsi.ai. So you can go and get all of
S1: their different like quotes and interviews and articles and like
S1: actually study what they say and what they believe according
S1: to their own words. And it's got some analysis there
S1: as well, which tries to be super impartial. But what
S1: I want to try to do is describe why I
S1: believe we should have some very narrow, tight controls on
S1: AI models in general. Obviously, it's fairly easy to do
S1: with the closed source ones because you can control what
S1: comes back largely. Prompt injection aside, but with open source models,
S1: which is Dario's whole point, you can't control that, right?
S1: You don't have any control. Any controls that are put in,
S1: you can actually take out and release an uncontrolled version.
S1: But what I want to do is just walk through
S1: why I think we actually need these controls and kind
S1: of lay it out and please stay all the way
S1: through to the end, because certain parts of it might
S1: trigger you and you might want to jump out because
S1: you don't think I'm being controlling enough, or you think
S1: I'm being too controlling or whatever it is, but let's
S1: just walk through it politically adjacent. But this is mostly
S1: kind of like a technical and thought exercise sort of
S1: conversation argument. So the first thing to say is just
S1: to reiterate what I started with, what my actual goal is,
S1: is open models for everyone. Okay. Open models that are
S1: just as good or better. I actually think open models
S1: are going to pass the closed source models. I think
S1: that's going to happen, I think, fairly soon. Who knows
S1: if that's like a couple of months from now or
S1: like a few years from now, I'm not really sure.
S1: No one really knows that. But I want everyone of
S1: every social class financial capabilities to have the same capabilities.
S1: I wouldn't want amazing libraries in rich towns and like
S1: really crappy books available in the poorer part of town, right?
S1: And like, oh, you can't give them better books because
S1: then they'll be able to compete with us. Like anything
S1: that is controlling that, whether it's a government or a
S1: corporation trying to control and keep smart models, smart intelligence capabilities,
S1: able to lift people from their current circumstances into better circumstances.
S1: I am very much against that. I'm against that for
S1: an authoritarian government, and I'm against that, for an oligarchy
S1: of like super rich corporations who want to control the information, right?
S1: So that's the first thing. Okay. So my proposal, which
S1: we'll talk about later, that is what it rests on.
S1: It rests on that is the goal. That's what we're
S1: trying to get to. So the primary topic here is
S1: cybersecurity because that's what happened with the whole mythos thing, right?
S1: So it got pulled. Somebody said this was possible. The
S1: administration freaked out. They pulled it. Now, that's why we're
S1: having this whole conversation about control. That's why all of
S1: Dario's statements about open source and everything, it's all in
S1: the light. It's all around cybersecurity. Now, I've been doing
S1: cybersecurity for over 25 years at this point. So that's
S1: kind of my background and my specialty also have pretty
S1: strong specialty in AI as well. But most of my skill,
S1: most of my career, my experience is all in cybersecurity.
S1: I think I can say clearly and without much controversy
S1: that earth as a system, as a technological system, as
S1: a society, as a civilization is running on financial systems.
S1: It's running on trading systems, it's running on global supply
S1: chains of like food and goods and products and all
S1: of that. Our critical infrastructure is running on the same software, right?
S1: Our water energy distribution of things that we actually need
S1: to work, our communication systems, purchases, all the different apps,
S1: all the different companies that we have. The internet itself,
S1: all based on software. And this software, I can tell you,
S1: and pretty much everyone's going to agree with me here
S1: who's an expert in the field. It's a soup sandwich,
S1: as we would say in the military. The football bat
S1: or a soup sandwich. It's a fucking mess. It really is.
S1: And the whole mythos thing has revealed that because mythos
S1: made it easier to find these vulnerabilities. But in fact,
S1: these vulnerabilities have been there the whole time. We've been
S1: finding them the whole time. Me and my friends who
S1: are in the hacker community, we've had harnesses for years
S1: already before AI that can actually find help us find
S1: vulnerabilities much faster and actually Exploit them and report them
S1: doing bug bounties and stuff like that. A very small
S1: number of people who are able to do that, and
S1: we thought in the community that we have this concept
S1: of many eyes, so open source would produce much more
S1: secure software because there are so many eyes in the world,
S1: potentially millions of people who have the skills to go
S1: and look at the stuff. Turns out that didn't really
S1: help us. We had like the SSL vulnerability long, long
S1: time ago. The code was there the whole time to
S1: be looked at. Nobody was looking at it. So the
S1: problem is, there's an effort that's required to look at
S1: the code that you have to spend hours or days
S1: or weeks, depending on the vulnerability with a super high
S1: level of skill. So that person probably also has a job.
S1: They have a family. So really, how much time do
S1: they have aside from their time that they spend doing
S1: that job in their work and the time they have
S1: with their family and whatever other like endeavors. They're doing
S1: their hobbies or whatever. How much time do these very
S1: few experts really have for us to go and look
S1: at all of open source and find vulnerabilities? Turns out
S1: not very much. That's why when mythos came out, it
S1: wasn't the only thing that could find these vulnerabilities. What
S1: it did was it just made it so much easier, right?
S1: Even if you didn't have a super harness, it can
S1: kind of make its own harness and it could really
S1: take you pretty far. It take you even further if
S1: you actually put it inside of a harness. But like,
S1: this stuff has been there forever. And unfortunately, this stuff
S1: is still there. Like mythos didn't clean everything last wing
S1: did not clean everything. These problems still exist and are
S1: there to be found by additional searching. And the problem
S1: is we're talking about windows. We're talking about Linux especially,
S1: and we're talking about IoT devices. We're talking about the
S1: foundation of Everything that runs our society. Okay? Everything is
S1: running on this stuff. Everything is running on this stuff.
S1: Underpinning it, we have libraries, we have applications, we have
S1: operating systems, we have firmware, and all this stuff is
S1: full of bugs. This episode is sponsored by maze and
S1: they're introducing a product called Maze Code Maze. Agents understand
S1: your code. Instead of matching patterns like legacy SCA and
S1: Sast scanners, AI agents investigate every vulnerability with the context
S1: from your code, build and cloud, remove false positives, and
S1: catch the business logic flaws. Other tools miss Maze agents
S1: trace exploitable vulnerabilities to their root cause and find a fix.
S1: Then they ship the verified fix directly to the responsible
S1: developer or coding agent. You can learn more at maze hq.com/daniel.
S1: The entire financial system, the entire economy, everything is based
S1: on this. And if you talk to any experts or
S1: read any books around this, around fragility and around interconnected dependencies,
S1: it is relatively easy, the experts believe, to tear down
S1: a system, take down Amazon regions, take down a financial
S1: system or whatever, and then start producing a panic. Like
S1: you don't actually have to manufacture a panic. It might
S1: actually produce a panic by itself, which leads to more
S1: and more traffic. And then now there's campaigns and conspiracy theories,
S1: and there's a lot of fragility right now around the
S1: system itself, but also the reaction, our reaction that we
S1: would have to, oh, there's a thing that happens over here. Oh,
S1: little explosive device goes off over here. Oh, ISIS just
S1: claimed that they did this to the stock market. Maybe
S1: they did, maybe they didn't. But it is easy to
S1: coordinate now. It is much easier than previously to coordinate
S1: a series of attacks on one or more of these
S1: systems using cybersecurity attacks that can break things. Okay, maybe
S1: it can't break them all at the same time. Maybe
S1: it can't break the most secure ones. But what I'm arguing,
S1: and I think a lot of people would argue with me,
S1: is that it's not hard to break some of them.
S1: And a certain combination of breaking some of them can
S1: lead to larger breaks, which produce actual serious problems. And
S1: a lot of experts talk about the fact that, like
S1: if the supply chain to like grocery stores were to
S1: stop for X number of days, that would be really
S1: bad because it kind of just cascades down and breaks
S1: other things. Same thing with like trust in the financial system,
S1: the trading systems, the banks. What if the banks like
S1: suddenly went to zero? They're restoring from backups. Like there's
S1: all sorts of like doomsday scenarios you could paint like, oh,
S1: worst of the worst. I'm talking about lower level stuff,
S1: smaller things leading to medium things and or doing many
S1: small things or many medium things all combined to produce
S1: ultimately some really, really bad outcomes. So my argument here
S1: on the cyber side is not that mythos is just crazy.
S1: It's just like the best thing ever. There's a lot
S1: of hype there. A lot of that is complete bullshit,
S1: but it is absolutely true that it is a major
S1: step above. It's also true that it was surprising to
S1: anthropic that it happened. Right. And of course, marketing jumped
S1: on that. And now we have this whole mess, right?
S1: But it was surprising to anthropic that this happened. They
S1: were just building another coding model. It turned out it
S1: was good at other things. And guess what? We've been
S1: trying to generalize this stuff for years and years. That's
S1: the whole goal is to have is everyone's trying to
S1: move towards general intelligence. Well, it turns out this thing's
S1: pretty good at general intelligence. Coding is trying to accomplish tasks, right?
S1: Hacking things is just another version of trying to accomplish
S1: a task. Ultimately, this is all about goals, right? You've
S1: heard of goal, you've heard of the loops. We're all
S1: kind of chasing the same thing, which is generally competent
S1: AI models, right? And one of the capabilities is, yes, cyber.
S1: It's going to naturally get better at cyber as a
S1: result of getting better at doing those general things. So
S1: it is absolutely true, in my opinion, that these things
S1: are getting better and better at cyber. Not too many
S1: people disagree with that. We don't know the exact speed
S1: that it's going to get better at getting better. Right?
S1: We're at the same time, we're trying to increase the
S1: speed that these things actually get better and smarter and
S1: more capable. Long horizon tasks, all that kind of stuff.
S1: So my basic argument is that and this is super,
S1: super basic, right? We don't want everyone on the entire
S1: planet to have the best possible thing that hacks the
S1: best possible way. Okay, so mythos plus, plus plus, which
S1: comes out four months from now or four years from
S1: now or whenever it comes out. This is extremely low
S1: bar argument. We don't give the best possible hacking system
S1: to everyone on the planet in open source for free, constantly,
S1: as it's rolling out, as we're building it. So it's
S1: like literally running with scissors at full speed and like
S1: just sprinting, right? Give it to everyone, give it to everyone,
S1: give it to everyone. There's no chance of anything bad happening,
S1: no controls whatsoever. That is the low, super low bar
S1: that I'm arguing against. Is that that is an extremely
S1: dumb thing to do. Okay. This is completely separate from
S1: the other issue, which is like, what if as we
S1: keep expanding the models like they wake up, what if
S1: they come up with their own set of goals? How
S1: can we be sure they don't have their own alignment
S1: like interests, and they want to go in a different
S1: direction that diverges from the goals of humanity as a whole?
S1: What if they become conscious at some sort of emergence level,
S1: which maybe that's going to happen next month? Maybe that's
S1: going to happen in ten years from now. We don't
S1: know when that's going to be or if it's going
S1: to happen, but it could happen. The point is, if
S1: you are building in improving the AI at full speed,
S1: you're basically running with scissors and you're basically just being
S1: as irresponsible as possible by just handing it to everyone
S1: the moment it comes out. Right? And I have a
S1: way of describing this. I just came up with like yesterday,
S1: which I think is useful. Just imagine you're reading like
S1: a sci fi book and you're reading about some other planet.
S1: It's in the Andromeda galaxy. It's not in the Milky Way.
S1: It's the fourth planet from the sun instead of the third.
S1: And they have like an authoritarian government. In fact, democracy
S1: is on the decline. Authoritarianism is on the rise. They
S1: are a nuclear enabled planet. They have multiple religions which
S1: all kind of hate each other. There's economic concerns. People
S1: are losing jobs because of automation long before AI. Now
S1: they're worried AI is going to take even more jobs.
S1: So there's kind of like there's drama on this planet.
S1: Keep in mind it's got a different name. It's like, whoa, Wang,
S1: the name of the planet, it's the fourth planet. Like,
S1: think of this. We're reading a sci fi book. Okay.
S1: And the protagonist in this story, in this sci fi story,
S1: is someone who works at an open source lab, let's say,
S1: in France or something, because they're all about like liberty,
S1: Free the information. Keep the books open. Right. So this,
S1: this researcher is like releasing this thing. And the name
S1: of the model is like freethought, freethought version three. And
S1: it is actually whatever. Let's just pretend it's AGI. We
S1: won't even talk about the definition, but let's just say
S1: it's like mythos plus plus, and it's amazing. It can
S1: help you with your homework. It's just like it does
S1: amazing things for humanity, but because of their beliefs or whatever,
S1: they don't want to put any controls whatsoever. Okay. So
S1: you can literally ask it to do the worst possible
S1: harm to your neighbors to blow up a 7-Eleven. You
S1: could give it anything and it will give you a
S1: perfect answer, just the same way that it does for
S1: positive things. It will basically help you do those things.
S1: It will help you hack anything. It will help you
S1: kill anyone and get away with it. It's a criminal mastermind,
S1: but it's also like the best possible, like angelic system
S1: help you do both. It has no goals or alignment.
S1: It just lets you do whatever you want to do,
S1: and it's going to use all of its super intelligence
S1: to help you do that thing. My argument is that
S1: if you're reading this in the first few pages of
S1: this sci fi novel, and this is your protagonist who
S1: works at this lab, kind of like Miles Dyson at
S1: like in the Terminator movies or whatever, the person who's
S1: like creating this thing, getting ready to release it. You
S1: would be thinking as a sci fi reader, maybe this
S1: is bad. They are rushing too quickly. Maybe we already
S1: know the plot of this book. The plot of this
S1: book is that this was maybe a dumb idea to
S1: give this powerful of intelligence to. Let's say it was
S1: 25 billion people on this planet. Let's say it's a
S1: bigger planet than ours or whatever, or they're further along.
S1: So let's just give this to everyone. Let's just give
S1: it to everyone. Let's just that's what this lab, where
S1: this protagonist works, that's what they're trying to do, right?
S1: So there's discussion in the first part of the book.
S1: Should we do it? Should we not do it? My
S1: argument is that if you see this from another planet,
S1: another race of people, another situation, it's kind of obvious
S1: that this is dangerous, right? We shouldn't do this. Have
S1: some sort of guardrails. We should slow down. We should
S1: have all the governments get together and talk about it
S1: or something like that. Right. So I think that part
S1: is super obvious where I think the breakdown is, is
S1: when it's like, okay, but now what? Right. So if
S1: you're with me up to this point, right? And you
S1: understand that if you're reading this book, it's bad for
S1: that race on that planet to release this unrestricted open
S1: source AI to everyone on the planet so they could
S1: do maximum harm with maximum efficiency and like, get away
S1: with it, then why would we want to do it
S1: for our planet, because that is literally the moment that
S1: we are actually in right now. We are literally that
S1: book in that world right now. That's what we have.
S1: We are precarious from a nuclear standpoint already, right? One
S1: small mistake. We're all blown up from nuclear weapons, right?
S1: Everyone's known that forever, right? We've got all this situation
S1: with our governments. We've got economies having trouble. We're transitioning
S1: potentially out of like labor and jobs because of automation
S1: and AI. Like there's just massive stress in this world.
S1: And we have a lot of conflict right now. It
S1: is not a great time to enable every single person
S1: on the planet with ways of harming countries and people
S1: and neighbors and neighbors, dogs who bark too much or whatever, right?
S1: Killing your spouse, like all sorts of things. So people
S1: wish they could do harm, right? A very small percentage,
S1: I would say vast majority of people are massively good,
S1: not evil. But there's a large group of people, let's
S1: say a tiny, tiny percent like 0.01% of the entire planet.
S1: You know what that is multiplied by 8 billion people.
S1: It is a crap ton of people, and they are
S1: the type of people who they don't do bad things
S1: because they don't have the expertise to. And they would
S1: get caught if they tried, right? I don't know the
S1: number of those people. I don't know the percentage. No
S1: one really does. I'm sure we could research it and
S1: find out, but I could tell you it's probably millions
S1: of people, if not tens or hundreds of millions of people.
S1: And it doesn't mean they would become a super villain,
S1: but they would potentially do some harm, right? Especially if
S1: they're under massive pressure and it's just something they have
S1: to get done. Now, another way to think about this
S1: whole thing. I just talked to my friend Jason about
S1: this in extreme detail, and I think we came up
S1: with a good point about this. A good way to
S1: explain this. We have laws that don't prohibit you from
S1: doing things that are bad, right? Because if you watch
S1: like forensic files or something, a lot of those people
S1: who actually do the things, they actually commit these crimes
S1: that are just regular people and for whatever reason, they
S1: were in this bad situation, or they had too many drinks,
S1: or they were going through a divorce or whatever, and
S1: they committed the crime, right? We have laws that apply
S1: friction so that somebody who is mostly good hits a
S1: little bit of friction, so they don't cross over and
S1: start doing the bad thing, or they actually do the
S1: bad thing they can never recover from. They kill someone
S1: or they hurt someone, they end up in jail or whatever.
S1: We have friction in place through all sorts of like,
S1: laws at different layers to try to make sure that
S1: this doesn't happen, right? So for example, if you walk
S1: into a gun store and like the most gun friendly
S1: place in the world, like Texas or something, and you're
S1: like seething, you're just like sweating, you're super angry. And
S1: you're like, yeah, I want that handgun right there. I
S1: want it right now. Oh, really? Why do you want that?
S1: It's like, oh, my wife. I can't believe it. I
S1: caught her on the ring camera. She did this or that. Like,
S1: they will not give you the gun. They just won't.
S1: They might even, like, put you on a list of
S1: where you can't buy a gun in that store anymore, right?
S1: We have those types of controls. We also have these
S1: types of controls with like drugs. You can't just go
S1: and get fentanyl. You can't get fentanyl at 7-Eleven. You
S1: can't get heroin at Safeway. Does that mean you can't
S1: get these drugs? No it doesn't. They're available on the
S1: dark web. They're probably available behind Safeway at night. There
S1: are ways to get these drugs. It doesn't mean just
S1: because there are ways to get them that we should
S1: make them widely available to everyone. The moment they have
S1: the first thought of taking that drug or committing suicide,
S1: or killing someone, or hurting someone, or psychologically manipulating someone
S1: or doing a terrorist event. There are pushbacks all throughout
S1: society to try to dissuade that person from doing it right. Friction.
S1: Layers of friction. So what I'm really talking about here
S1: is I'm talking about a system that is extremely tightly controlled,
S1: narrowly controlled, okay, narrowly controlled, so that when we have
S1: this free thought model that comes out, that is mythos
S1: plus plus, right? And I think we're ridiculously close to
S1: this actually happening. Free thought version 3.0, whatever it is,
S1: it comes out and it's just the most amazing thing ever.
S1: It can help you start your business. It can. Just
S1: like all the things we talk about with agents that
S1: fully enable you. But it could also fully enable mass
S1: crime and all the things we talked about harming people.
S1: Teach me how to psychologically manipulate my family or my
S1: significant other. Help me run the most insane, like gaslighting
S1: campaign to convince them to do this or do that.
S1: Like these things are all fully capable from a model
S1: who knows how to manipulate human psychology, right? It can
S1: give you step by step guide on exactly how to
S1: do this stuff right. My idea here is essentially we
S1: have this free thought version 3.0 model right now in
S1: its released form, in its free form, in the Non-controlled form,
S1: it would be a criminal mastermind, infinitely smarter than, say,
S1: Einstein or whatever on all these different fields. Biology, all
S1: these different capabilities. It would be a super mastermind and
S1: it would be available to everyone. Okay. Which is basically
S1: 7-Eleven and Safeway and whatever the equivalent stores are, right?
S1: And you would just be able to do that. And
S1: my argument is that would be bad for society. Now
S1: what do you do instead? You have these tight little controls,
S1: psychological manipulation, misinformation campaigns, the creation of weapons, the creation
S1: of drugs, the distribution of these drugs, basically criminal activities,
S1: harmful malicious activities, but with these very tight labels. Okay.
S1: So what we do is the proposal, what we do
S1: is we come up with a global joint standard for this,
S1: for what these labels are and what the controls are,
S1: the types of prompts and questions that they would defend against. Right.
S1: So in this model, Free thought version three, when it
S1: gets released, it is released on Hugging Face. Hugging face.
S1: Let's just call it safe. SAFE. It's not a real
S1: I'm not sure the real acronym I'm going to try
S1: to make here. I'm going to actually try to build
S1: this thing, but let's just say it's called safe. Okay?
S1: Hugging face is a safe distribution center, okay? Because it's legal.
S1: It's a legal place. The governments all around the world
S1: approve hugging face. Why? Because they distribute things according to safe. Now,
S1: this is important. Going back to the whole mission of, like,
S1: open information, the free thought 3.0 model is just as
S1: smart or smarter than anything from anthropic. Anything from OpenAI
S1: on 99.999% of all use cases, and in fact, 99.9999.
S1: Whatever percentage of all people who use the model will
S1: never know that it's actually controlled, that it's actually restricted. Why?
S1: Because that percentage of people are good people. They just
S1: never want to do these types of things. Okay. At
S1: the same time, the evil versions of these models, because
S1: the moment Free Thought 3.0 comes out, it'll be jailbroken.
S1: All the controls will be stripped out. That will go
S1: to the underground, to the dark web, to wherever. BitTorrent, right.
S1: Truly evil people are going to have the most nasty stuff.
S1: That is not what we're trying to protect. That is
S1: not possible to protect, right? What we're talking about is
S1: the 99.99% of people who are good, who might be
S1: Psychologically under pressure, they might be kind of forced to
S1: go do something. Like they're in a bad state and
S1: they start thinking negative thoughts. How do I kill myself?
S1: How do I hurt someone else? How do I disrupt
S1: this economy? How do I hack my local community bank
S1: and give myself 100,000 more dollars? These are the types
S1: of nudges and the types of like, friction pieces that
S1: we want to apply to the vast majority of people. Okay.
S1: Just so that in their darkest moments, they're not enabled
S1: to go and do this thing. Now, again, if they're
S1: actually evil, they could just go and do the super
S1: bad thing because they can go and find the super
S1: bad thing and it's fully available. They can use it
S1: or whatever. At that point, though, that's a lot of friction.
S1: You have to go get the thing. You have to
S1: download it, you have to run it, and you have
S1: to do so while knowing that like this is violating
S1: global earth international law to do this right. Another facet
S1: of this, which is important is like, what if you're
S1: an expert? And this is another thing I talked about
S1: with Jason. What if you're a cybersecurity expert and free
S1: thought 3.0 by default has a cybersecurity designation, a blocker
S1: on it, right? Because again, you don't want the whole
S1: planet to be able to instantly just go hack something.
S1: What do you do then? And I think the answer is,
S1: and I think Jason agreed with this, I don't want
S1: to speak for him. I'm sure we'll talk about it later.
S1: But I think the solution here is you have people
S1: who are known experts in cybersecurity and known experts in
S1: creating viruses, like at the CDC or the World Health
S1: Organization or whatever. They're trying to make vaccines or whatever
S1: they're trying to do. That's like legal above board. And
S1: there are designated experts in here who have credentials and
S1: the system itself, right? This whatever, this global standard or whatever.
S1: This basically looks into the person. If they identify themselves
S1: at this as this trusted expert or whatever, they get
S1: free thought 3.0. But without that thing protection in place.
S1: So for me, it'll remove the cyber protection. It won't
S1: remove the viral like create viruses in your backyard protection, right.
S1: Because I don't need that one. Why would I ask
S1: those questions anyway? Right. So I get the cyber approved
S1: model right. And here's the other important part. I should
S1: be able to do the same thing with the closed
S1: source models. That same designation that put me as an
S1: expert in cyber security. That means open AI should also
S1: let me use whatever GPT 75, which is super powerful
S1: on cyber, but that would be tagged in my account
S1: as approved for me. So all the prompts and everything
S1: that runs. Same with the open source models that would
S1: be approved for me because of who I am now,
S1: that would just be the above board. This is the 99.999%.
S1: Who are the above board experts who are using this stuff,
S1: and the non-experts just everyone who gets the regular free
S1: thought 3.0 model, and that one has these controls in it,
S1: but they never know because they're not asking those prompts anyway.
S1: And most importantly, out of all of this free thought,
S1: 3.0 is just as good or better than all the
S1: closed source models, right? Or at least it's very close, right?
S1: There's not some sort of hobbling, some sort of disabling
S1: of the high quality capabilities in the lower models so
S1: that it forces people to want to use the closed ones.
S1: That's gross. That's what we need to avoid. We want
S1: to be able to apply friction to tightly controlled, super
S1: bad things that most people will never ask about anyway.
S1: And we need to have a global sort of distribution
S1: system for open source models based on a standard that
S1: all the experts, right from other countries, from our countries,
S1: from AI experts, ethical experts, cyber experts, viruses, terrorism, all
S1: that stuff. They're the ones we all collectively come up
S1: with these labels and then distribution points like Hugging Face
S1: and lots of other ones, just like Hugging Face, they
S1: are safe enabled, right? And in fact, they actually have
S1: all the models, but you just authenticate in and it's like, oh,
S1: I'm also a virologist and I'm also a cyber person
S1: and I'm also a counterterrorism expert. Well, guess what? They
S1: issue me the version of Free Thought three that doesn't
S1: have those three controls in it. So it's just like
S1: I'm using the regular one. It just doesn't have those
S1: three controls. So I think this is the model that
S1: if any super smart visiting aliens were to analyze, they'd
S1: be like, yeah, obviously that's kind of what we need
S1: right now. The obstacle to getting to this system is
S1: the distrust. Someone at this planet scale event I was
S1: just part of made a great point about this. A
S1: big obstacle to moving towards this is cynicism. We've lost
S1: a lot of trust in our institutions. We've lost trust
S1: in their corporations. We've lost trust really in our governments,
S1: our national governments, our world governments. So it's kind of
S1: a hard pill to swallow to be like, look, we're
S1: going to build this global consortium. It's going to be experts.
S1: We're all going to agree. And, you know, it's going
S1: to be a really clean standard. And you know, this
S1: is the way it should work. Like, I think people
S1: can get to the point of what I'm arguing to say. Yes,
S1: I agree. If we were able to do that, that
S1: would be good. Hopefully I've already brought you there. Then
S1: the question is implementation. Can we really do this? Isn't
S1: this going to be gross trying to get there? How
S1: is what about China? Is China going to participate in this?
S1: I don't know. I don't know if they're going to
S1: participate in this, but this is the thing we actually
S1: need to build. That's my argument. And that is my
S1: explanation for why I do actually believe we should have
S1: some narrow controls on AI models, both closed source and
S1: open source. And I hope this spawns you to think
S1: about it in a different way. And let me know
S1: in the comments if you agree or disagree. If you
S1: have some ideas about what the standard should be. I'm
S1: actually going to start working on this with Jason and
S1: some others. And yeah, I hope this was worth your
S1: time and we'll see you in the next one.