Not DALL·E 2, not PaLM, not AlphaZero, not even GPT-3.
"What they have in common is that they believe technology — and particularly AI — should be open, diverse, inclusive, responsible, and accessible for the benefit of humanity."
Jennifer Doudna takes the same attitude towards her work on CRISPR (genetic engineering). She calls it "democratizing" CRISPR.
While this approach sounds very noble and politically correct, and is sincerely well intended, it can also be viewed as recklessly spreading very powerful technologies to anybody and everybody who wishes to leverage these tools to advance their own goals, no matter what those goals might be.
The underlying problem with this approach is that as the scale of powers available to us grows, the room for error shrinks. Thus, even though most people will probably use these tools for good, those using these tools for harm are increasingly being put in a situation where they can bring down the entire system.
If that sounds like hysterical wild speculation, please consider the current reality TODAY is that a single human being can, in just a few minutes, start a process which ends this civilization. Yep, nuclear weapons. We absolutely refuse to learn the lessons they can teach us. Not a good sign.
Do you still feel the title of this article is correct, Alberto?
> This isn’t the first time open-source has won over privacy and control. We have examples in computers, operating systems, browsers, and search engines.
Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA architectures are all closed.
Most used OSes, namely Windows, macOS, and iOS are all closed.
Opera, Safari and Google Chrome are all closed.
Google, Bing, Baidu are all closed.
What examples do you have in mind really? Linux & Firefox?