This article conflates issues in a misleading way. Yes companies calling their AI models 'open-source' when they are not released under an actual open-source license is a problem that needs to be addressed. But the argument that companies and individuals tailoring AI model to their specific use case somehow constitutes 'censorship' has nothing to do with this issue and is not even a sound and reasoned stance to begin with.
You are being 'censored' when you can't do something. There is nothing stopping anyone from taking something like Llama 2, loading it up with one of these 'uncensored' AI models and doing whatever the hell you want with it. Nothing is stopping you. That's your right. If you feel that strongly about these commercial AI services, just don't use them.
This is essentially arguing that if a company made a customer service AI chatbot the company's AI chatbot should be required by law to also be able to provide you with instructions on how to manufacture methamphetamine. And if the company doesn't open themselves to potentially severe legal and civil liability by allowing it, this all somehow constitutes a grievous violation of your rights? I'm sorry but that is an absurd assertion.
Again the licensing issue is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed but this article is a straw-man argument using the licensing issue to promote a personal opinion.
You are being 'censored' when you can't do something. There is nothing stopping anyone from taking something like Llama 2, loading it up with one of these 'uncensored' AI models and doing whatever the hell you want with it. Nothing is stopping you. That's your right. If you feel that strongly about these commercial AI services, just don't use them.
This is essentially arguing that if a company made a customer service AI chatbot the company's AI chatbot should be required by law to also be able to provide you with instructions on how to manufacture methamphetamine. And if the company doesn't open themselves to potentially severe legal and civil liability by allowing it, this all somehow constitutes a grievous violation of your rights? I'm sorry but that is an absurd assertion.
Again the licensing issue is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed but this article is a straw-man argument using the licensing issue to promote a personal opinion.