u/mtg_liebestod

Anyone who uses the term "billionaire" in any of these discussions is self-discrediting. They are just lazily using this discussion to grind a pre-existing axe.

If someone wants to talk about billionaires, ask them in particular how they'd imagine any of these issues changing if the AI companies were just owned by millionaires instead.

If what they really mean is that they want the AI companies to be owned by worker communes or the state, then lol.

Plenty of writers have been embarrassed when you can easily take their 2022 texts and run it through Pangram and get 0% AI, then you take their 2026 texts and it's 100% AI. There is self-consistency here. I haven't seen many stories where Pangram said something was 100% AI generated and this actually turned out to be wrong.

The safest thing to do as a standard is to simply ask if someone is OK with it before doing it.

It's obviously not practical and that's why we have centuries of common law established on image usage rights.

No, you don't need Donald Trump's permission to draw him in a political cartoon that mocks him. If I were to complain about "rape culture" when someone does this I would receive hundreds of downvotes pretty much anywhere on Reddit. Would this make me wrong? No. But on a practical level, I wouldn't be doing my cause any favors.

Likewise, when someone uses AI to generate an innocuous photo using someone else's likeness and gets a bunch of rabid replies about how this makes you a garbage human being, then the outsized intensity of those replies gets treated by normal people as self-discrediting. It's an empirical matter.

nooo men can't simulate female companionship your rights end where my ick begins

Where you draw the line might not be were someone else draws the line.

And some people will draw lines that are absurd to normal people. Case in point.

A lot of the prompts used for reverse-engineering are probably dual-purpose and will trigger safety flags, similar to how lots of innocuous chemistry questions will trigger CRBN safety policies.

Can we not manipulate photos of people we disagree with to attack how they present themselves?

It's not really doing that, it's just saying "I used your image without your authorization, deal with it."

Triggering some sort of extreme backlash over it is supposed to stand on its own to make the people being trolled look silly. No, this isn't rape culture.

It wouldn't make any difference in the state of the AI industry or technology. Not that it would literally make no difference to anyone in any way lmfao

Like seriously, what is the utopian story here? Without billionaires, we'd be implementing a UBI for artists? ahahah

People seething about billionaires as if things would be any different if we had high enough wealth/income taxes are just another side flinging shit in the moshpit.

Yeah well as soon as these open models are being prominently used for cybercrime we'll see this start to change.

I mean yeah, that's always been the awkward balance for the last 10 years or so?

If you can't run your crusade on Reddit directly, then you get it published somewhere instead where it can be linked back on Reddit as news. The minimal gatekeeping provided by needing media connections or at least journalist sympathizers is considered adequate.

You can get around all sorts of harassment/doxxing/brigading rules this way.

So you have no idea why Qwen prohibits CSAM, but you are confident that they will not introduce cybersecurity controls that may impact reverse engineering, once Qwen is as capable as Claude is today.

Curious.

Anyways, why doesn't Qwen produce CSAM?

I think the belief is inferred via the offering, which you likely do too. I think you're just trying to dodge the question: Why doesn't Qwen produce CSAM? Do you have an answer that wouldn't imply anything about Alibaba's beliefs?

Are you asking me to prove that Qwen won't produce CSAM?

Otherwise consider it a rephrasing of my request that excludes any part about what Alibaba believes, which ultimately is not what's functionally important.

If I have context to where they made this claim I could give a

Why do you think Qwen does not allow Americans to produce CSAM?

The company empirically produced more profit than they lost that year, that's a verifiable metric.

That doesn't vindicate the decision.

Who cares? Is it profitable? That's what matters.

So why do you think Alibaba believes that having Qwen produce CSAM is unprofitable? If you're just throwing up your hands and saying "I have no idea, I defer to their internal analytics" then why are you also so confident that adding more cybersecurity guardrails will not become profitable in the future?

What was the underlying goal, so that I may avoid another strawman.

It's to highlight that they made a decision about non-compliance, and it may have turned out to be wrong. If you disagree, I don't see a point in discussing it further because it is an immaterial distraction. Unless you truly are trying to prove that companies can presumptively ignore all laws and regulations when making business decisions.

I see you repeatedly dodging the more material questions:

1) Why do you think current Chinese models have any guardrails?

2) What do you think would happen if the next version of Qwen allowed for CSAM and deepfake generation, and Alibaba put up an American-facing website for using it? You think there would not be some sort of aggressive domestic response, if not from the government than from other civic institutions and digital infrastructure providers?

the point you were trying to make (that exploitation is unprofitable)

lmao holy strawman. I said specifically that America will either block Chinese APIs that do not offer adequate guardrails or alternatively that China will simply implement adequate guardrails on their own. You started talking about trade wars and embargoes in response.

Your contention seems to be that the Chinese models will be lax on cybersecurity guardrails because it will be bad for business, which obviously proves too much: Again, how do you square your simplistic narrative with the fact that current Chinese APIs have guardrails?

Yep. Turns out that DEI is overcosted and underpowered. Based WotC.

Blame the mods.

Why did GM continue to sell defective cars, despite knowing about the defects, thereby killing 124 different people?

And did this turn out to be the profitable choice, after all the lawsuits and brand damage?

So why do you think Chinese models have any safety/security guardrails? Surely if the models readily generated CSAM or graphic deepfakes they could get a few additional subscribers, right?

Yeah, it's a levels of friction thing.

Targeted offers are often good both for the targets and the company making the offers.

But with social media and AI it is often more challenging to target properly. And if this becomes a problem, then we'll just stop seeing offers made. Some will benefit and some will lose. But moreover, it will create deadweight loss.

But Tiktok is obviously an example where they will bend the algorithm for foreign audiences. You don't get banned for talking about Tianaman Square, etc. So why would you think that China would insist on offering dangerous models to foreign audiences that it would not allow domestically? You actually think there will be a world where Chinese models are routinely the source of cybersecurity incidents and America just does nothing about it because China will.... embargo the US if they do? lol.

The US can't just block foreign companies indiscriminately without starting another trade war, which it cannot afford because its entire economy is propped up on the US dollar and cheap imports through inflation.

You honestly think blocking Chinese LLMs would cause an economic crisis in the US, despite China already blocking American offerings? lol.

It's not "indiscriminate", it will specifically be associated with (forthcoming) high-profile instances of these models being used for attacks on domestic infrastructure.

The better outcome of course would be for the foreign models to just have better cybersecurity guardrails. The CCP will want this too anyways. The world where you can access highly-capable models without cybersecurity guardrails outside of open weights or some sort of darkweb shit will simply not exist. And of course once there are additional high-profile attacks then we'll find new ways to go after those as well.

Another option of course is for the models to avoid false positive cybersecurity blocks, but I can't really see that happening in the near future.

"China will force the US to accept an asymmetric cybersecurity crisis due to its economic leverage" is certainly a novel take though, so thanks for that.