Comment by hedora
14 hours ago
The printing press gave us the renaissance, even though the church argued it was too dangerous to give non-clergy access to books.
Even things like universal access to guns was a net positive. It led to the end of feudalism and rise of democracy.
The sad truth is that whenever any one group of people gets a monopoly over an important technology, they use it to exploit/enslave/murder everyone they can. Look at the international news for examples from 2026.
Since the Renaissance got started before the printing press, maybe you mean the press fueled it? The idea that the church found printing dangerous seems like a conflation with events that happened during the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church did censor works it found heretical, including unauthorized Bible translations.
One could argue the opposite conclusion, that technology helps break monopolies, but either view depends on reductionist historical readings. The truth is somewhere in between.
Restricting things like creation of a highly infectious virus is very different from restricting books or even guns. There is no 'monopoly' over such a technology, as a use of the technology will inevitably harm the creators themselves.
Restrictions on high end biology, chemistry would leave overwhelming number of use cases of LLMs unaffected - no need to ban open weight LLMs. Such restrictions can be even more effective, if it is coupled to researchers getting early access to see the possible problems and have an opportunity to prevent the outbreak or create new vaccines well in advance.
Restrictions are not enabling monopolies. The opposite is true, if a LLM engineered virus or other harmful technology is let loose, public opinion can very quickly swing towards draconian regulation. (see nuclear power after Chernobyl).
Speaking practically you're hypothetical is a scenario that requires somebody that is proactively interested in, and theoretically capable of, making a e.g. dangerous virus, yet are unwilling/unable to do so without a chatbot. How many people might this possibly apply to? I think the number is literally zero.
I also don't entirely understand your comment, because your latter parts do not follow from your lead. You're 100% right that somebody who's not extremely capable messing with this stuff is overwhelmingly likely to just hurt themselves. And somebody relying on a chatbot to guide them in dealing with this sort of tech? Yeah, they're gonna win a Darwin Award.
---
I also think there's an entirely different, yet also compelling argument, against censorship. Local LLMs already exist and are advancing rapidly. There will come a time, probably in the relatively near future, when the state of the art big system and a decent uncensored local system will become practically indistinguishable in terms of capability. So not only will people be able to do this locally, but you lose something big in the process.
The reality is that our interactions with LLMs are 100% being actively surveilled, regardless of privacy promises of the companies involved. At the minimum, every chat is making it's way over to the NSA's Utah data center, one way or the other. Some guy trying to do something significantly malicious using an LLM is little more than a gift to the authorities, but this is only true with centralized/online uncensored services. Push people onto local models to do nefarious stuff, and law enforcement is blinding themselves.