Does Llama 3 Pose a National Security “Hazard”?
The Open Source release of Llama 3 is openly accessible to use on major platforms, including AWS, Google Cloud, and IBM WatsonX
Yesterday, legendary Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla, speaking at Bloomberg's Tech conference, said that Llama 3, Meta Platforms Inc.’s new large language model (LLM), should not be released as open-source software (Source: YouTube video here). He labeled it a “national security hazard” that could be freely accessed by adversaries like China.
Chris Cox, Meta’s Chief Product Officer, took the stage shortly after and defended the decision, arguing that open source helps make technology more universally accessible.
Meta Platforms' strategy to open-source its Llama 3 model marks a calculated effort to secure a competitive edge in the bustling AI industry, where it faces rivals like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Mistral. By making Llama 3 available as open source, Meta not only challenges its competitors but also positions itself as a proponent of responsible AI practices. This move is primarily driven by Meta’s ambition to expand its market share in the LLM space. While the implications for national security are considered, they appear to be a secondary priority compared to Meta's primary goal of strengthening its foothold in the AI market. This approach reflects a broader industry trend where major players seek to innovate rapidly while balancing ethical considerations and market dynamics.
I agree 100% with Vinod that Llama 3 – as an open-source project – is a national security "hazard".
Assessing whether Meta's Llama 3 LLM represents a national security "hazard" requires a nuanced evaluation centered on how the technology is utilized, rather than its intrinsic qualities. LLMs are capable of processing and generating large volumes of data, raise concerns about data security, privacy, and the potential misuse of sensitive data. Their proficiency in generating realistic text could also be maliciously used to disseminate misinformation. Moreover, employing AI to automate decision-making processes without proper oversight or safeguards, coupled with the dual-use potential of LLMs for both beneficial and detrimental objectives, complicates the evaluation of their security risks.
Vinod was cautious in avoiding the term "national security threat," a phrase that denotes serious – and potentially imminent and catastrophic – risks to the federal government, U.S. businesses, and citizens. Such threats have significant repercussions on the economy, government security, and societal stability. Consequently, protecting the nation's intelligence, military capabilities, infrastructure, data, and other sensitive information is a critically important for federal agencies.
The risk of any technology becoming a national security hazard or threat largely depends on the functionality and security measures implemented by the developers, the vigilance of the community using and monitoring the technology, and regulatory frameworks. The U.S. government should at the present time assess these risks and consider controls to mitigate this new potential security hazard posed open source LLMs.