To me, “democratize AI” makes as much sense as “democratize smallpox”, but it would be good to find out that I’m wrong.
Isn’t “democratizing smallpox” a fairly widespread practice, starting from the 18th century or so—and one with rather large utility benefits, all things considered? (Or are you laboring under the misapprehension that the kinds of ‘AIs’ being developed by Google or Facebook are actually dangerous? Because that’s quite ridiculous, TBH. It’s the sort of thing for which EY and Less Wrong get a bad name in machine-learning- [popularly known as ‘AI’] circles.)
Not under any usual definition of “democratize”. Making smallpox accessible to everyone is no one’s objective. I wouldn’t refer to making smallpox available to highly specialized and vetted labs as “democratizing” it.
Google and/or Deepmind explicitly intend on building exactly the type of AI that I would consider dangerous, regardless of whether or not you would consider them to have already done so.
Isn’t “democratizing smallpox” a fairly widespread practice, starting from the 18th century or so—and one with rather large utility benefits, all things considered? (Or are you laboring under the misapprehension that the kinds of ‘AIs’ being developed by Google or Facebook are actually dangerous? Because that’s quite ridiculous, TBH. It’s the sort of thing for which EY and Less Wrong get a bad name in machine-learning- [popularly known as ‘AI’] circles.)
Not under any usual definition of “democratize”. Making smallpox accessible to everyone is no one’s objective. I wouldn’t refer to making smallpox available to highly specialized and vetted labs as “democratizing” it.
Google and/or Deepmind explicitly intend on building exactly the type of AI that I would consider dangerous, regardless of whether or not you would consider them to have already done so.