> I would argue that it's negligence and that's aside from the fact that if a human did this there would actually be repercussions.

I’m not sure “negligence” follows just from the controls turning out to be insufficient. Research involves mistakes, especially around novel failure modes. The question is whether the precautions were unreasonable given what they knew at the time, rather than whether hindsight suggests stronger controls would have helped. Doing it twice though would be negligent.

Caveat: I’ve worked with some of the people involved, so I’m probably biased toward a charitable reading.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49094493

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I guess I have some perspectives on a bunch of this. I'm for open sharing of academic work for all (but I'm not an academic, so my perspective is a consumer), so inferring your perspective here I think we agree on that. I maintain many open source (MIT/Apache2 licensed) libraries, and I've also worked in big tech (Amazon, OpenAI). I believe both in the idea of collective commons but also in the ideas that there should be the ability of people to sell software. There's tension in that social contract similarly, and it gets more complex when you look at copyleft.

I guess I'd be disappointed if this was just allowing big labs access and not more broadly allowing access to the ACM library for smaller open source models. Very much in agreement with your last points there.

I get the copyright aspect of this and I'm not arguing that here. I'm more asking about the moral / ethical idea of choosing who can benefit from your science.

Obviously there are the moral / ethical arguments about AI in general here to weigh against - those have been hashed out significantly elsewhere, and I'm not interested in debating them. What I'm asking about here is the impact on science by sharing it with tooling that distributes it in ways not generally considered when originally written.

A quick check of your post history suggests the frame that you work in strongly is privacy related research (observation - may be wrong). I'm curious how that impacts what you wrote here generally.

(Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing your points here, trying to understand them better)

discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49089500

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49056821

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I suspect it may be possible to throw a local model (same as hf did :D) at jfrog and find the exact mechanism in a small amount of hours.

https://support.sonatype.com/hc/en-us/articles/5316501964136...

pure speculation here - no non public info

I've had on my someday bucket list doing up a web based version of daisy disk as a docker image I can slap on my various servers, but this is probably just as good an approach. I like it.