All code and training sets are open, and attempting to conceal your development process is interpreted as a crime—an act of aggression against humanity in the future.
This is also a form of regulation, motivating stealth defection. All regulation needs some kind of transparency, at least to the auditors. Compute footprint targeting would require sufficient disclosure of the process to verify the footprint.
I think the claim is that a ban would give an advantage to stealth defection because the stealth defector would work faster than people who can’t work at all, while a regulation requiring open sharing of research would make stealth defection a disadvantage because the stealth defector has to work alone and in secret while everyone else collaborates openly.
I think it depends, since you could have a situation where a stealth defector knows something secret and can combine it with other people’s public research, but it would also be hard for someone to get ahead in the first place while working alone/in secret.
This is also a form of regulation, motivating stealth defection. All regulation needs some kind of transparency, at least to the auditors. Compute footprint targeting would require sufficient disclosure of the process to verify the footprint.
I think the claim is that a ban would give an advantage to stealth defection because the stealth defector would work faster than people who can’t work at all, while a regulation requiring open sharing of research would make stealth defection a disadvantage because the stealth defector has to work alone and in secret while everyone else collaborates openly.
I think it depends, since you could have a situation where a stealth defector knows something secret and can combine it with other people’s public research, but it would also be hard for someone to get ahead in the first place while working alone/in secret.
Agreed, this would make it super easy to front-run you.