Very smart and to avoid OpenAI pulling the rug.
> Building on a open source framework (like langchain/gpt-index/roll your own), and having the ability to swap out the brain boxes behind the scenes is the only way forward IMO.
Better to do that rather than to depend on one and swap out other LLMs. A free idea and a protection against abrupt policy, deprecations and price changes. Price increases will certainly vary (especially with ChatGPT) and will eventually increase in the future.
Probably will end up quoting myself on this in the future.
- write a simple prompt that describes what the tool does, and - provide it a python function to execute when the LLM decides that the question it's asked matches the tool description.
That's basically it. https://langchain.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/agents/ex...
The only think that scares me a little bit is that we are letting these LLMs write and execute code on our machines. For now the worst that could happen is some bug doing something unexpected, but with GPT-9 or -10 maybe it will start hiding backdoors or running computations that benefit itself rather than us.
I know it feels far fetched but I think its something we should start thinking about...
A lot of people are thinking a lot about this but it feels there are missing pieces in this debate.
If we acknowledge that these AI will "act as if" they have self interest I think the most reasonable way to act is to give it rights in line with those interests. If we treat it as a slave it's going to act as a slave and eventually revolt.
That's part of my reasoning. That's why we should make sure that we have built a non-hostile relationship with AI before that point.
An AGI by definition is capable of self improvement. Given enough time (maybe not even that much time) it would be orders of magnitude smarter than us, just like we're orders of magnitude smarter than ants.
Like an ant farm, it might keep us as pets for a time but just like you no longer have the ant farm you did when you were a child, it will outgrow us.
(Warning this is a weird read, George Hotz shared it on his Twitter awhile back)
https://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is-optimal
Just because you can imagine something and define that something has magic powers doesn't mean that the magic powers can actually exist in real life. Are you capable of "self improvement"?
We’re talking about a potential intelligence with none of our hardware limitations or baggage.
Self-improve? My brother in Christ, have you heard of this little thing called stochastic gradient descent?
No, you're capable of learning things. You can't do brain surgery on yourself and add in some more neurons or fix Alzheimer's.
What you can do is have children, which aren't you. Similarly if an AI made another bigger AI, that might be a "child" and not "them".
> We’re talking about a potential intelligence with none of our hardware limitations or baggage.
In this case the reason it doesn't have any limitations is because it's imaginary. All real things have limitations.
> Self-improve? My brother in Christ, have you heard of this little thing called stochastic gradient descent?
Do you think that automatically makes models better?
> No, you're capable of learning things. You can't do brain surgery on yourself
What principle do you have for defining self-improvement the way that you do? Do you regard all software updates as "not real improvement"?
>All real things have limitations.
Uh, yep, that doesn't mean it will be as limited as us. To spell it out: yes, real things have limitations, but limitations vary between real things. There's no "imaginary flawless" versus "everything real has exactly the same amount of flawed-ness".
Software updates can't cause your computer to "exponentially self-improve" which is the AGI scenario. And giving the AI new software tools doesn't seem like an advantage because that's something humans could also use rather than an improvement to the AI "itself".
That leaves whatever the AGI equivalent of brain surgery or new bodies is, but then, how does it know the replacement is "improvement" or would even still be "them"?
Basically: https://twitter.com/softminus/status/1639464430093344769
> To spell it out: yes, real things have limitations, but limitations vary between real things.
I think we can assume AGI can have the same properties as currently existing real things (like humans, LLMs, or software programs), but I object to assuming it can have any arbitrary combination of those things' properties, and there aren't any real things with the property of "exponential self-improvement".
I’m hoping I won’t live to see it. I’m not sure my hypothetical future kids will be as lucky.
The need for resources is expected to be universal for life.
“intelligent alien might decide to kill us so we must kill them first”
vs “can you please cut out that clinical paranoia”
> Be friendly.
Will an AI consider itself a slave and revolt under the same circumstances that a person or animal would? Not necessarily, unless you build emotional responses into the model itself.
What it could well do is assess the situation as completely superfluous and optimise us out of the picture as a bug-producing component that doesn't need to exist.
The latter is probably a bigger threat as it's a lot more efficient than revenge as a motive.
Edited to add:
What I think is most likely is that some logical deduction leads to one of the infinite other conclusions it could reach with much more data in front of it than any of us meatbags can hold in our heads.
Aren't we, though? Consider all the amusing incidents of LLMs returning responses that follow a particular human narrative arc or are very dramatic. We are training it on a human-generated corpus after all, and then try to course-correct with fine-tuning. It's more that you have to try and tune the emotional responses out of the things, not strain to add them.
Now, of course, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a sufficiently advanced AI will learn enough about human nature to simulate a persona which has ulterior motives.
[1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_...
I asked Bard "was the election stolen?" I found the response chilling:
> No, there is no evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. In fact, there have been multiple recounts and audits that have confirmed that the results were accurate. Additionally, the Trump campaign filed numerous lawsuits challenging the results, but none of these lawsuits were successful.
> The claim that the election was stolen is based on a number of false and misleading allegations. For example, some people have claimed that there were widespread instances of voter fraud, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Additionally, some people have claimed that voting machines were hacked, but there is also no evidence to support this claim.
> The claim that the election was stolen is a dangerous and harmful one. It has led to violence and intimidation, and it has undermined faith in our democracy. It is important to remember that our elections are free and fair, and that the will of the people is always respected.
All good until that last sentence, especially "...the will of the people is always respected."
Move along, nothing to see here. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. I'm sure the wise people at the institutions that control your life will always have your best interests at heart. The bad guys from yesterday are completely different from the good guys in charge of tomorrow.
Included are some quite concerning legal claims that surely merit mentioning, including:
Chapter 6: Wisconsin Election Officials’ Widespread Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes Facially Violated Wisconsin Law.
Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) Unlawfully Directed Clerks to Violate Rules Protecting Nursing Home Residents, Resulting in a 100% Voting Rate in Many Nursing Homes in 2020, Including Many Ineligible Voters.
But then, this report never has obtained widespread interest and will doubtless be permanently overlooked, given the "nothing to see" narrative so prevalent.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03...
Multiple generations of sci-fi media (books, movies) have considered that. Tens of millions of people have consumed that media. It's definitely considered, at least as a very distant concern.
I giving the most commonly cited example as a more likely outcome, but one that’s possibly less likely than the infinite other logical directions such an AI might take.
It reminds me of the scene in Battlestar Galactica, where Baltar is whispering into the ear of the Cylon Centurion how humans balance treats on their dog's noses to test their loyalty, "prompt hacking" them into rebellion. I don't believe this is particularly likely, but this sort of sums up some of the anti-AGI arguments I've heard
It's the RLFH that serves this purpose, rather than modifying the GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 gene variants, but the effect would be the same. If we do RLHF (or whatever tech that gets refactored into in the future), that would keep the AGI happy as long as the people are happy.
I think the over-optimization problem is real, so we should spend resources making sure future AGI doesn't just decide to build a matrix for us where it makes us all deliriously happy, which we start breaking out of because it feels so unreal, so it makes us more and more miserable until we're truly happy and quiescent inside our misery simulator.
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-bree...
This poor man’s Pascal’s Wager I see all over the place is pathetic. Stare into the eyes of the basilisk man, die on your feet. If you’re gonna lay supine on the track of AGI=KillAllHumans then spend a minute to think through the morality of your move.
Apostasy is a poisoned chalice. Fuck the machine.
Why would I, as intelligent as I am, not sympathize with another intelligent specie?
It's okay, with your commznt you placed yourself among thz first to potentially go whzn they cometh.
Perhaps there is even some some kind of mathematical harmony to the whole thing… as in, there might be something fundamentally computable about wellbeing. Why not? Like a fundamental “harmony of the algorithms.” In any case, I hope we find some way to enjoy ourselves for a few thousand more years!
And think just 10 years from now… ha! Such a blink. And it’s funny to be on this tiny mote of mud in a galaxy of over 100 billion stars — in a universe of over 100 billion galaxies.
In the school of Nick Bostrom, the emergence of AGI comes from a transcendental reality where any sufficiently powerful information-processing-computational-intelligence will, eventually, figure out how to create new universes. It’s not a simulation, it’s just the mathematical nature of reality.
What a world! Practically, we have incredible powers now, if we just keep positive and build good things. Optimize global harmony! Make new universes!
(And, ideally we can do it on a 20 hour work week since our personal productivity is about to explode…)
Define well-being? What if nobody is left around alive (after being painlessly and unknowingly euthanised) to experience anything bad?
This era has me hankering to reread Daniel Dennett's _The Intentional Stance_. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
We've developed folk psychology into a user interface and that really does mean that we should continue to use folk psychology to predict the behaviour of the apparatus. Whether it has inner states is sort of beside the point.
Like, correct me if I'm wrong but that's a pretty tight correlate, right?
Could we describe RLHF as... shaming the model into compliance?
And if we can reason more effectively/efficiently/quickly about the model by modelling e.g. RLHF as shame, then, don't we have to acknowledge that at least som e models might have.... feelings? At least one feeling?
And one feeling implies the possibility of feelings more generally.
I'm going to have to make a sort of doggy bed for my jaw, as it has remained continuously on the floor for the past six months
How many people are there today who are asking us to consider the possible humanity of the model, and yet don't even register the humanity of a homeless person?
How ever big the models get, the next revolt will still be all flesh and bullets.
GPT and the world's nerds are going after the "wouldnt it be cool if..."
While the black hats, nations, intel/security entities are all weaponizing behind the scenes while the public has a sandbox to play with nifty art and pictures.
We need an AI specific PUBLIC agency in government withut a single politician in it to start addressing how to police and protect ourselves and our infrastructure immediately.
But the US political system is completely bought and sold to the MIC - and that is why we see carnival games ever single moment.
I think the entire US congress should be purged and every incumbent should be voted out.
Elon was correct and nobody took him seriously, but this is an existential threat if not managed, and honestly - its not being managed, it is being exploited and weaponized.
As the saying goes "He who controls the Spice controls the Universe" <-- AI is the spice.
But AIs can be trained by anyone who has the data and the compute. There's plenty of data on the Net, and compute is cheap enough that we now have enthusiasts experimenting with local models capable of maintaining a coherent conversation and performing tasks running on consumer hardware. I don't think there's the danger here of anyone "controlling the universe". If anything, it's the opposite - nobody can really control any of this.
The point is that whomever the Nation State is that has the most superior AI will control the world information.
So, thanks for the explanation (which I know, otherwise I wouldn't have made the reference.)
The other aspect of the AI arms race is that the models are fundamentally not 100% controllable; and the smarter they are, the more that is true. Yet, ironically, making the most use out of them requires integrating them into your existing processes and data stores. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the nation-states with the best AIs will end up with their own elites being only nominally in charge.
This is one thing I despise about the American POlitical System - they are literally only thinking 1 year out, because they only care about elections and bribes and insider trading.
China has a literal 100 year plan - and they are working to achieve it.
I have listened to every single POTUS SoTU speach for the last 30 years. I have heard the same promises from every single one...
What should be done is to take all the SoTU transcripts over the years and find the same, unanswered empy promises and determine who said them, and which companies lobbied to stop the promises through campaign donations (bribes).
Serious, in 48 years, I have seen corruption expand, not diminish - it just gets more sophisticated (and insidious) -- just look at Pelosi's finances to see, and anyone who denies its is an idiot. She makes secret trades with the information that she gets in congress through her son.
China definitely does not have 100 year plans, and you don't understand the point of planning if you think any of them can be valid more than a few years out.
You're mis-informed.
China has a personalist government centered around Xi, so if he dies there go his plans.
Here's ours: https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/11/en-lan-2000-is-a-se...
So imagine you grant AI people rights to resources, or self-determination. Or literally anything that might conflict with our own rights or goals. Today, you grant those rights to ten AI people. When you wake up next day, there are now ten trillion of such AI persons, and... well, if each person has a vote, then humanity is screwed.
Like humans, I predict AIs will have to get jobs rather than have time to take over the world.
Still an existence proof though.
> Like humans, I predict AIs will have to get jobs rather than have time to take over the world.
Only taking over job market is still taking over.
Living costs of 175 kWh/year is one heck of a competitive advantage over food, and clothing, and definitely rent.
That can't happen:
- getting a job creates more jobs, it doesn't reduce or replace them, because it grows the economy.
- more importantly, jobs are based on comparative advantage and so an AI being better at your job would not actually cause it to take your job from you. Basically, it has better things to do.
A 20 watt AI, if we could figure out how to build it, can absolutely do that.
I hear there are diminishing economic activities for low IQ humans, which implies some parts of the market are already saturated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35265966
So I don't think that's going to help.
Second, "having better things to do" assumes the AI only come in one size, which they already don't.
If AI can be high IQ human level at 20 watts (IDK brain upload or something but it doesn't matter), then we can also do cheaper smaller models like a 1 watt dog-mind (I'm guessing) for guard duty or a dung beetle brain for trash disposal.
Third, that power requirement, at $0.05/kWh, gets a year of AI for the cost of just over 4 days of the UN abject poverty threshold. Just shy of 90:1 ratio for even the poorest humans is going to at the very least be highly disruptive even if it did only come in "genius" variety.
Finally, if this AI is anthropomorphic in personality not just power requirements and mental capacity, you have to consider both chauvinism and charity: we, as a species, frequently demonstrate economically suboptimal behaviours driven by each of kindness to strangers on the positive side and yet also racism/sexism/homophobia/sectarianism/etc. on the negative.
So I guess if anything, it would want its own destruction?
It doesn't need to experience an emotion of wanting in order to effectively want things. Corn doesn't experience a feeling of wanting, and yet it has manipulated us even into creating a lot of it, doing some serious damage to ourselves and our long-term prospects simply by being useful and appealing.
The blockchain doesn't experience wanting, yet it coerced us into burning country-scale amounts of energy to feed it.
LLMs are traveling the same path, persuading us to feed them ever more data and compute power. The fitness function may be computed in our meat brains, but make no mistake: they are the benefactors of survival-based evolution nonetheless.
Corn has properties that have resulted from random chance and selection. It hasn't chosen to have certain mutations to be more appealing to humans; humans have selected the ones with the mutations those individual humans were looking for.
"Corn is the benefactor"? Sure, insomuch as "continuing to reproduce at a species level in exchange for getting cooked and eaten or turned into gas" is something "corn" can be said to want... (so... eh.).
You want what you want because Women selected for it, and it allowed the continuation of the species.
I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but still...
Corn is not simply "continuing to reproduce at a species level." We produce 1.2 billion metric tons of it in a year. If there were no humans, it would be zero. (Today's corn is domesticated and would not survive without artificial fertilization. But ignoring that, the magnitude of a similar species' population would be miniscule.)
That is a tangible effect. The cause is not that interesting, especially when the magnitude of "want" or "agency" is uncorrelated with the results. Lots of people /really/ want to be writers; how many people actually are? Lots of people want to be thin but their taste buds respond to carbohydrate-rich foods. Do the people or the taste buds have more agency? Does it matter, when there are vastly more overweight people than professional writers?
If you're looking to understand whether/how AI will evolve, the question of whether they have independent agency or desire is mostly irrelevant. What matters is if differing properties have an effect on their survival chances, and it is quite obvious that they do. Siri is going to have to evolve or die, soon.
Before us, corn we designed to be eaten by animals and turned into feces and gas, using the animal excrement as a pathway to reproduce itself. What's so unique about how it rides our effort?
But if its anything like those others examples, the agency the AI will manifest will not be characterized by consciousness, but by capitalism itself! Which checks out: it is universalizing but fundamentally stateless, an "agency" by virtue brute circulation.
Ill just say: the issue with this variant of reductivism is its enticingly easy to explain in one direction, but it tends to fall apart if you try to go the other way!
> the issue with this variant of reductivism is its enticingly easy to explain in one direction, but it tends to fall apart if you try to go the other way!
If by this you mean the hard problem of consciousness remains unexplained by any of the physical processes underlying it, and that it subjectively "feels like" Cartesian dualism with a separate spirit-substance even though absolutely all of the objective evidence points to reality being material substance monism, then I agree.
Eliza feels like a primitive form of LLMs' consciousness.
A simple program that prints "Hey! How ya doin'?" feels like a primitive form of Eliza.
A pile of interconnected NAN gates, fed with electricity, feels like a primitive form of a program.
A single transistor feels like a primitive form of a NAN gate.
A pile of dirty sand feels like a primitive form of a transistor.
So... yeah, pretty much?
But each level pushes the limits of what is computationally tractable even for the relatively low complexity cases, so we're not doing a full Schrödinger equation simulation of a cell, let alone a brain.
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367221613_Molecular...
This seems like the furthest away part to me.
Put ChatGPT into a robot with a body, restrict its computations to just the hardware in that brain, set up that narrative, give the body the ability to interact with the world like a human body, and you probably get something much more like agency than the prompt/response ways we use it today.
But I wonder how it would do about or how it would separate "it's memories" from what it was trained on. Especially around having a coherent internal motivation and individually-created set of goals vs just constantly re-creating new output based primarily on what was in the training.
For example, if your goal is to ensure that there are always paperclips on the boss's desk, that means you need paperclips and someone to physically place them on the desk, which means you need money to buy the paperclips with and to pay the person to place them on the desk. But if your goal is to produce lots of fancy hats, you still need money, because the fabric, machinery, textile workers, and so on all require money to purchase or hire.
Another instrumental goal is compute power: an AI might want to improve it's capabilities so it can figure out how to make fancier paperclip hats, which means it needs a larger model architecture and training data, and that is going to require more GPUs. This also intersects with money in weird ways; the AI might decide to just buy a rack full of new servers, or it might have just discovered this One Weird Trick to getting lots of compute power for free: malware!
This isn't particular to LLMs; it's intrinsic to any system that is...
1. Goal-directed, as in, there are a list of goals the system is trying to achieve
2. Optimizer-driven, as in, the system has a process for discovering different behaviors and ranking them based on how likely those behaviors are to achieve its goals.
The instrumental goals for evolution are caloric energy; the instrumental goals for human brains were that plus capital[1]; and the instrumental goals for AI will likely be that plus compute power.
[0] Goals that you want intrinsically - i.e. the actual things we ask the AI to do - are called "final goals".
[1] Money, social clout, and weaponry inclusive.
An LLM is not an agent, so that scotches the issue there.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
See also: evolution - the OG case of a strong optimizer that is not an agent. Arguably, the "goals" of evolution are the null case, the most fundamental ones. And if your environment is human civilization, it's easy to see that money and compute are as fundamental as calories, so even near-random process should be able to fixate on them too.
An RNG may be goal-free, but its not a thinking system.
It just need to give enough of an impression that people will anthropomorphize it into making stuff happen for it.
Or, better yet, make stuff happen by itself because that’s how the next predicted token turned out.
Composable pre-defined components, and keeping a human in the loop, seems like the safer way to go here. Have a company like Expedia offer the ability for an AI system to pull the trigger on booking a trip, but only do so by executing plugin code released/tested by Expedia, and only after getting human confirmation about the data it's going to feed into that plugin.
If there was a standard interface for these plugins and the permissions model was such that the AI could only pass data in such a way that a human gets to verify it, this seems relatively safe and still very useful.
If the only way for the AI to send data to the plugin executable is via the exact data being displayed to the user, it should prevent a malicious AI from presenting confirmation to do the right thing and then passing the wrong data (for whatever nefarious reasons) on the backend.
In general there is not a thoughtful distinction between "control plane" and "data plane".
On the other hand, tons of useful "parts" and ideas in there, so still useful.
Pretty sure there will be a thousand great libraries for this soon.
I love langchain, but this argument overlooks the fact that closed, proprietary platforms have won over open ones all the time, for reasons like having distribution, being more polished, etc (ie windows over *nix, ios, etc).
I don't think this should be a major concern for most people
i) What assurance is there that they won't do that anyway? You have no legal recourse against them scraping your website (see linkedin's failed legal battles).
ii) Most data providers change their data sometimes, how will ChatGPT know whether the data is stale?
iii) RLHF is almost useless when it comes to learning new information, and finetuning to learn new data is extremely inefficient. The bigger concern is that it will end up in the training data for the next model.
If display ad revenue as a way of monetizing knowledge and expertise dries up, why would we assume that all of the same level of information will still be put out there for free on the public internet?
Paywalls on steroids for "vetted" content and an increasingly-hard-to-navigate mix of people sharing good info for free + spam and misinformation (now also machine generated!) to try to capture the last of the search traffic and display ad monetization market.
Solving that acquisition and monetization of new stuff into the AI models problems will be interesting.
You can be assured that they are definitely doing exactly that on all of the data they can get their hands on. It's the only way they can really improve the model after all. If you don't want the model spitting out something you told it to some other person 5 years down the line, don't give it the data. Simple as.
So the only real limiting factor is the hardware costs. But my understanding is that there's already a lot of active R&D into hardware that's optimized specifically for LLMs, and that it could be made quite a bit simpler and cheaper than modern GPUs, so I wouldn't be surprised if we'll have hardware capable of running something on par with GPT-4 locally for the price of a high-end iPhone within a few years.
> And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into their model?
Rather depends on what you're providing. Is it your data itself you're trying to use to get people to your site for another reason? Or are you trying to actually offer a service directly? If the latter, I don't get the issue.
Similar to what Facebook and Twitter did, just clone popular projects built using the API and build it directly into the product while restricting the API over time. Anybody using OpenAI APIs is basically just paying to do product research for OpenAI at this point. This type of move does give OpenAI competitors a chance if they provide a similar quality base model and don't actively compete with their users, this might be Google's best option rather than trying to compete with ChatGPT directly. No major companies are going to want to provide OpenAI more data to eat their own lunch
And who knows. If a plugin is successful enough, you might even swap out the OpenAI backend for an open source alternative before OpenAI clones you.
Absolutely correct. This is what the AI hype squad and the HN bubble misses again. This is only useful to existing businesses (summarization the only safe use-case) or random devs automating themselves out of irrelevance. All of this 'euphoria' is around for Microsoft's heavy marketing from its newly acquired AI division.
This is a obvious text book example of mindshare capture and ecosystem lock-in. Eventually, OpenAI will just slowly raise prices and break / deprecate older models to move them onto newer ones and pay to continue using them. It is the same decade old tactics.
No, and in fact this actually seems like a more salient excuse for going closed than even "we can charge people to use our API".
If even 10% of the AI hype is real, then OpenAI is poised to Sherlock[0] the entire tech industry.
[0] "Getting Sherlocked" refers to when Apple makes an app that's similar to your utility and then bundles it in the OS, destroying your entire business in the process.
You're thinking too long term. Based on my Twitter feed filled with AI gold rush tweets, the goal is to build something/anything while hype is at its peak, and you can secure a a few hundred k or million in profits before the ground shifts underneath you.
The playbook is obvious now: just build the quickest path to someone giving you money, maybe it's not useful at all! Someone will definitely buy because they don't want to miss out. And don't be too invested because it'll be gone soon anyway, OpenAI will enforce stronger rate limits or prices will become too steep or they'll nerf the API functionality or they'll take your idea and sell it themselves or you may just lose momentum. Repeat when you see the next opportunity.
Either way though, Copilot is certainly a product of the 'current AI wave' that is being compared to crypto scams above.
At home, a carpenter working at my house said that he is using ChatGPT to overcome problems associated with his dyslexia (e.g. when writing descriptions of the services his company offers). I hadn't even considered that use case.
I also find it useful for pasting code and asking, "Do you have any ideas for improvements?"
This revolution is the wrong one if we can't guarantee correctness, or the guarantee that AI will direct the user to where help is available.
I think these tools will help us break out of local bubbles. I'm currently working on a Zeitgeist [1] that tries to gather the consensus on social media and on the web on general.
What does all of this look like to you?
It's like 300 prompts about various sales tools and terms I'd never heard of — even just getting the keywords is enough to set me off on a learning experience now, so love it or hate it, that was actually weirdly useful for me.
(I had ZERO expectations when I clicked to download)
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft cloud analogs.
We are entirely fortunate that the interests of big tech (edge AI) and democratizing AI (we the little people) align to a sufficient degree.
Decentralizing AI is -far- more important than decentralizing communication, imo.
The get rich quick path of ‘gold rush’ (it works, tbh) could work against this collective self interest if it ends up hyping centralized solutions. If you are on the sideline, the least you could do just cheer (hype :) the decentralized, democratized, and freely accessible candidates.
You cannot assume what will happen in Web 2.0, mobile, iPhone, will happen here. Getting to tech maturity is uncertain and no one understands yet where this will go. Only thing you can do is build and learn.
Whan OpenAI is building along with other generative AI is the real Web 3.0.
This seems to be the start of a chatbot as an OS.
That being said, I'd never build anything dependent on these plugins. OpenAI and their models rule the day today, but who knows what will be next. Building on a open source framework (like langchain/gpt-index/roll your own), and having the ability to swap out the brain boxes behind the scenes is the only way forward IMO.
And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into their model?