\n
![](\"https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/GettyImages-491588398-e1709579410103.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Vinod Khosla and Marc Andreessen, both founders turned investors, spent part of their weekends debating<\/a> each other on whether the pursuit of artificial general intelligence\u2014the idea that a machine could become as smart as a human\u2014should be open source<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The debate kicked off with a post<\/a> from Khosla praising OpenAI and Sam Altman, the company\u2019s CEO.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have known @sama since the early days of @OpenAI and fully support him and the company,\u201d Khosla wrote. \u201cThese lawsuits are a massive distraction from the goals of getting to AGI and its benefits.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Andreessen responded to Khosla\u2019s message by accusing him<\/a> of \u201clobbying to ban open source\u201d research in AI.\u00a0<\/p>\n Andreessen seemed to take issue with Khosla\u2019s support for OpenAI because the firm has walked away from its previous open-source ethos. Since the advent of AI, Andreessen has come out as a big supporter of open-source AI<\/a>, advocating it as a means to safeguard against a select few Big Tech firms and government agencies controlling access to the most cutting-edge AI research.\u00a0<\/p>\n Both in this debate and in the past, Andreessen has been dismissive<\/a> of the concerns raised by some of AI\u2019s biggest critics. Andreessen has previously chalked up these worries to fears of disruption<\/a> and uncertainty rather than the technology being malicious in and of itself\u2014a point he reiterated in his exchange on X<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cEvery significant new technology that advances human well-being is greeted by a ginned-up moral panic,\u201d Andreessen posted<\/a> on X. \u201cThis is just the latest.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Khosla, on the other hand, tends to look at AI through a geopolitical and national-security lens rather than through a strictly entrepreneurial one. In the past, Khosla has warned he believes AI competition between the U.S. and China<\/a> will escalate into a \u201ctechno economic war.\u201d At Fortune<\/em>\u2019s Brainstorm Tech conference<\/a> in December, Khosla said the U.S. and China\u2019s AI arms race would ultimately decide which of the two superpowers would exert political influence<\/a> over the world.\u00a0<\/p>\n In responding to Andreesen\u2019s claims that he isn\u2019t in favor of open source, Khosla said the stakes were too high.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWould you open source the Manhattan Project?,\u201d Khosla replied<\/a> to Andreessen. \u201cThis one is more serious for national security. We are in a tech economic war with China and AI that is a must win. This is exactly what patriotism is about, not slogans.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n And @pmarca<\/a> would you open source the manhattan project? This one is more serious for national security. We are in a tech economic war with China and AI that is a must win. This is exactly what patriotism is about, not slogans. https:\/\/t.co\/AN18VmgVdk<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Vinod Khosla (@vkhosla) March 2, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The back-and-forth discussion between Khosla and Andreessen saw the two opine on Sam Altman<\/a>, OpenAI\u2019s lawsuits<\/a>, and Elon Musk<\/a>, who chimed in himself at one point. The debate also\u00a0explored whether anyone should be allowed to pursue any form of AI research, or if its most advanced versions should be delegated to the government. So while it may have seemed like just some online sniping between a group of extraordinarily successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs it contained a microcosm of the ongoing and critical debate<\/a> around open-source AI.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ultimately, neither camp wants to thoroughly ban open- or closed-source research. But part of the debate around limiting open-source research hinges<\/a> on concerns it is being co-opted as a bad-faith argument to ensure regulatory capture<\/a> for the biggest companies<\/a> already making headway on AI\u2014a point that legendary AI researcher and Meta\u2019s former chief AI scientist Yann LeCun<\/a> made when he entered the fray on X.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cNo one is asking for closed-source AI to be banned,\u201d LeCun wrote. \u201cBut some people are heavily lobbying governments around the world to ban (or limit) open source AI. Some of those people invoke military and economic security. Others invoke the fantasy of existential risk<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Elsewhere in Silicon Valley, famed angel investor Rob Conway asked<\/a> leading AI companies to pledge<\/a> to \u201cbuilding AI that improves lives and unlocks a better future for humanity.\u201d So far enlisting the likes of Meta, Google<\/a>, Microsoft<\/a>, and OpenAI as signatories to the letter. <\/p>\n Andreessen, sticking with Khosla\u2019s Manhattan Project analogy, raised concerns about OpenAI\u2019s safety protocols. He believes without the same level of security that surrounded the Manhattan Project\u2014such as a \u201crigorous security vetting and clearance process,\u201d \u201cconstant internal surveillance\u201d and \u201chardened physical facilities\u201d with \u201c24\u00d77 armed guards\u201d\u2014OpenAI\u2019s most advanced research could be stolen by the U.S.\u2019s geopolitical rivals.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIn fact, what we see is the opposite\u2014the security equivalent of swiss cheese,\u201d Andreessen wrote<\/a> on X. \u201cChinese penetration of these labs would be trivially easy using any number of industrial espionage methods, such as simply bribing the cleaning crew to stick USB dongles into laptops. My own assumption is that all such American AI labs are fully penetrated and that China is getting nightly downloads of all American AI research and code right now.\u201d<\/p>\n OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n Let’s assume, for discussion, that AI in 2024 is like atomic technology in 1943, that AI should therefore be handled like the Manhattan Project, and that the specific risk is that the Chinese Communist Party gains access to American AI. And let’s use OpenAI as an example of an\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Marc Andreessen \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@pmarca) March 3, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Andreessen, though, appears to have been doing more of a thought exercise than arguing a point, writing<\/a> in response to his own post, \u201cof course every part of this is absurd.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Of course every part of this is absurd.<\/p>\n (1) AI isn’t nukes, it’s math.<\/p>\n (2) Big companies, small companies, independent developers, and open source communities should be free to pursue AI.<\/p>\n (3) AI companies should not be nationalized, de jure or de facto (government-protected\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/2VqL6T5qZe<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Marc Andreessen \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@pmarca) March 3, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n At this point, OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk chimed in.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt would certainly be easy for a state actor to steal their IP,\u201d Musk replied<\/a> to Andreessen\u2019s post about security at OpenAI.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Khosla, too, made mention of Musk, calling<\/a> his decision to sue OpenAI \u201csour grapes.\u201d Last week, Musk filed a lawsuit against OpenAI<\/a>, alleging it breached the startup\u2019s founding agreement. According to Musk, OpenAI\u2019s close relationship with Microsoft and its decision to stop making its work open source violated the organization\u2019s mission. OpenAI took a similar tack to Khosla, accusing Musk of having \u201cregrets about not being involved<\/a> with the company today,\u201d according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Musk responded<\/a> by saying Khosla, \u201cdoesn\u2019t know what he is talking about,\u201d regarding his departure<\/a> from OpenAI in 2019. <\/p>\n Khosla\u2019s venture capital firm Khosla Ventures is a longtime backer of OpenAI. In 2019, Khosla Ventures invested $50 million<\/a> into OpenAI. As such, he didn\u2019t take kindly to Musk\u2019s lawsuit. \u201cLike they say if you can\u2019t innovate, litigate and that\u2019s what we have here,\u201d Khosla wrote on X<\/a>, tagging both Musk and OpenAI.\u00a0<\/p>\n With Musk now involved, the debate continued. Khosla remained adamant AI was more important than the invention of the nuclear bomb and therefore couldn\u2019t afford to be entirely open source\u2014though he did agree with Musk and Andreessen that its top firms should have more rigorous security measures, even relying on the government for assistance.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAgree national cyber help and protection should be given and required for all [state of the art] AI,\u201d Khosla wrote<\/a>. \u201cAI is not just cyber defense but also about winning economically and politically globally. The future of the world\u2019s values and political system depends on it.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite his reservations about making all of AI research open source, Khosla said he did not want development to halt. \u201c[State of the art] AI should not be slowed because enemy nation states are orders of magnitude bigger danger in my view,\u201d Khosla said in response to Andreessen.\u00a0<\/p>\n But Khosla and Andreessen did find some common ground on the question of AI alignment<\/a>, which refers to the set of ideologies, principles, and ethics<\/a> that will inform the models on which AI technologies are developed. Khosla wondered which groups would determine how AI gets aligned, before Andreessen chimed in with his own suggestion. <\/p>\n Or crazed activist lunatics at a small set of giant Northern California and Washington State tech companies? https:\/\/t.co\/CD95ChVmY2<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Marc Andreessen \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@pmarca) March 4, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n
Elon Musk enters the debate to criticize OpenAI\u2019s security<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n