Nathan Lambert 评蒸馏禁令：未必损害美国竞争力
Glad to see more institutions exploring the ideas here. I don’t think it’s cut and dry that distillation is bad for the US’s AI competitiveness.
针对 Archie Hall 与 kuhhbin 在《经济学人》撰文反对禁止部分基于美国模型训练的中国模型，Nathan Lambert 表示乐见更多机构探讨这些观点，并认为蒸馏对美国 AI 竞争力有害并非定论。
查看原帖为蒸馏辩护。本周，我们（@kuhhbin）在《经济学人》撰文，反对禁止部分基于美国模型训练的中国模型。 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 或许不喜欢蒸馏，但是： —— 价格竞争对生态系统有益 —— 矛盾的是，蒸馏可能对国家安全有益，既能将美国开发者针对网络/生物风险的防护措施传播到中国模型，又能让中国保持快速跟随者的状态 —— 美国开发者在此处的知识产权主张相当站不住脚，因为蒸馏与他们为所大量获取的训练数据使用的“合理使用”抗辩并无太大区别。 https://t.co/suRLpdoGUT
查看原文
In praise of distillation. We (@kuhhbin) argue in @TheEconomist this week against efforts to ban Chinese models trained in part on American ones. OpenAI and Anthropic may dislike distillation, but: — Price competition is good for the ecosystem — Paradoxically, distillation may be good for national security, both in propagating US developers' safeguards on cyber/bio risk to Chinese models, and in keeping China in fast-follower mode — The US developers' own IP claims here are pretty flimsy, since distillation isn't all that different to the 'fair use' defense they're using for the training data they hoover up. https://t.co/suRLpdoGUT
正文 · AI 翻译
很高兴看到更多机构在探讨这里的观点。我并不认为蒸馏对美国AI竞争力有害是板上钉钉的事。