A NYT article on the debate around whether LLM base models should be closed or open. Meta argues for openness, starting with the release of LLaMA (for non-commercial use), while OpenAI and Google want to keep things closed and proprietary. They argue that openness can be dangerous. But they are just protecting their commercial interests. I argue that closeness is *considerably* more dangerous than openness. Once LLMs become the main channel through which everyone accesses information, people (and governments) will *demand* that it be open and transparent. Basic infrastructure must be open. "Dr. LeCun also pointed to recent history to explain why Meta was committed to open-sourcing A.I. technology. He said the evolution of the consumer internet was the result of open, communal standards that helped build the fastest, most widespread knowledge-sharing network the world had ever seen. “Progress is faster when it is open,” he said. “You have a more vibrant ecosystem where everyone can contribute." "In Battle Over A.I., Meta Decides to Give Away Its Crown Jewels." nyti.ms/3Wf1yIc?smid=nytcore…

The year is 1440 and the Catholic Church has called for a 6 months moratorium on the use of the printing press and the movable type. Imagine what could happen if commoners get access to books! They could read the Bible for themselves and society would be destroyed.

LLMs have no physical intuition as they are trained exclusively on text. They may correctly answer physical intuition questions *if* they can retrieve answers to similar questions from their vast associative memory. But they may get the answer *completely* wrong 1/

To be clear: I'm not criticizing OpenAI's work nor their claims. I'm trying to correct a *perception* by the public & the media who see chatGPT as this incredibly new, innovative, & unique technological breakthrough that is far ahead of everyone else. It's just not.