9/27/2023 0 Comments Meta 2021 bbcor![]() Unfortunately, last week’s commitments show that the Biden administration has not yet fully come to terms with this dilemma. And neither can the White House or other regulators. This is the fundamental problem with open-source A.I. But if Meta makes the weights available, as it has with its LLaMA models to date, there is no way to prevent someone from removing whatever guardrails Meta puts in place by adjusting those weights. It sounds as though it plans fall back on the argument that it will have “considered the security risks” when open sourcing future models. So Meta isn’t backing off its open-source advocacy. were shared widely and that “democratizing access allows for continual identification and mitigation of vulnerabilities in a transparent manner by an open community.” The spokesperson also said it had undertaken safety testing of LLaMA 2 to give it guardrails against the prompts the company’s own experts, as well as “select external partners,” believed would be most likely to be used in criminal activity or produce harmful and hateful content or unqualified advice. software, arguing that it was a way to ensure the benefits of A.I. A spokesperson for the company reiterated Meta’s rationale for open sourcing its A.I. So how does this commitment about model weight security sit with Meta’s advocacy for open source A.I.? I put this question to the company. With the open-source version, it isn’t clear how easily Meta could prevent someone from using the model for some nefarious purpose, such as generating misinformation or malware. models, available both as open-source software and under commercial license. ![]() And, with LLaMA 2, Meta has made the A.I. If that were to happen again, it would clearly violate the pledge. ![]() In the case of the original LLaMA, the full weights were leaked online, allegedly from one of the research partners with which Meta had originally shared the A.I. The company has already publicly released several powerful large language models, called LLaMA and LLaMA 2. models, including all their weights, widely available to the public with few restrictions on how they can be used. What’s interesting about this is that Meta has emerged a leading proponent of open source A.I., the idea that the best way to push the field forward is to make A.I. The White House commitments say the companies will take steps to protect “proprietary and unreleased” model weights from being stolen and that they will “be released only when intended and when security risks are considered.” The weights are what allows someone to replicate a trained A.I. model’s weights, which are the numerical coefficients applied to each node of a neural network that determine its outputs. One of the pledges in particular stood out to me. The companies do some of this now, but the commitment says the testing will be carried out “in part by independent experts.” What it doesn’t say is exactly who these independent experts will be, who will determine their independence and expertise, and what testing they will conduct. software before releasing it, including testing for biosecurity and cybersecurity threats. For instance, the seven participants- Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI-agreed to perform extensive security testing of their A.I. What’s more, some of the pledges lacked specifics on how they would be carried out. Plus, since the commitments are voluntary, there’s little the administration can do to hold the companies accountable if they drift from their promises, other than to publicly shame them. system’s capabilities, limitations, and areas of appropriate and inappropriate use-are things they are, for the most part, already doing. Some of the commitments-such as the companies’ pledge to publish their A.I.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |