261–270 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think he was ever deluding himself. This was always the end goal. The fact that people fell for the lies, well, everyone in Silicon Valley eventually learns not to trust anybody whose title is CEO. The lesson is usually painful. But memorable.
Don’t know. His orb/ubs thing is so naive. It looks like he truly believes in SV’s ability to “make the world a better place”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally welcome cooperation with the Pentagon for OpenAI and other American companies. The disdain that seems to infest so many when it comes to working with our national defense organizations is both annoying and bewilderingly naive and that's even when we take into consideration all of the bad things that happen. Strengthening partnerships with our government certainly doesn't make me mistrust OpenAI.
Maybe the disdain is because the US military is actually very very evil?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If not openai, it would have been some other company... This does not justify anything and never has. I'm not even saying that what OpenAI is doing is bad (I don't think it's inherently bad to work with the military). But if one believes that it is bad, then "well someone was going to do it so it may as well be them" doesn't remotely hold water.
Doesn’t it, though? Especially in the context of military, if some potential enemy has no moral qualms using new technology to kill you, doesn’t it mean you’re somewhat forced to provide a defense or die a martyr? This is sort of what happened with nuclear weapons and the race. The strategy developed afterwards was mutually assured destruction but that probably won’t work here.
Slightly off-topic, but it's absolutely shocking to me how quickly OpenAI has managed to do a meteoric PR nosedive. I think within 6 months they've gone from one of the most exciting (yet controversial) non-profits in the world to mistrusted company that it seems most people are rooting against.
I personally welcome cooperation with the Pentagon for OpenAI and other American companies. The disdain that seems to infest so many when it comes to working with our national defense organizations is both annoying and bewilderingly naive and that's even when we take into consideration all of the bad things that happen. Strengthening partnerships with our government certainly doesn't make me mistrust OpenAI.
Also, we know that the US military frequently uses its powers to maintain its global hegemony and the influence of US corporations abroad. This can be beneficial (more stable world order with fewer conflicts) but can be harmful (if the US decides to overthrow your government to protect its interests or the interests of the powerful within the US, bye bye)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reinstating Altman was all about the money, and so is this.
Or they received a classified briefing showing how far ahead China or other adversaries are in terms of AI for military use and felt obligated to not let the US fall further behind.
Is it because it's speculative?
I'm confused - what exactly does the Pentagon have to gain from OpenAI's products? Their front-runners are an LLM and an image generator, and I'm not sure what large-scale use case the US Department of Defense can have for either of these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You talk about a country defending itself as if that's what militaries do. The US military has been intervening in the world stage for 80 years at this point. Take any country below the equator and chances are the US has probably used its military against it. That's not defence. You don't collaborate with that actor if you think defence is the goal.
So pushing Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't defense? Fascinating worldview you got there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you will be pleased to learn that the US military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to whoever happens to be the current President. Exactly because the dangers of assholes assuming the Presidency isn't some kind of genius insight that you're the first person to ever consider.
Why are you so salty? I just don't have faith in US political and cultural stability anymore, and as such I don't have faith that the constitution will be upheld, or even that the US will remain allied to Europe, where I live(though I wouldn't go as far as saying it's unlikely . Just wouldn't bet on it). Also, the US constitution clearly has very little direct say on the actions of the US military abroad, as history…
You can have faith or lack thereof in whatever you want, but I would like you to provide one single example in history where the President decided to give the military unconstitutional orders (as in legally acknowledged at the time to be unconstitutional, not "I don't like it so it's unconstitutional") and the US military sided with him instead of the Constitution.
Utterly predictable. AI will be weaponized and anybody working on it is going to have to live with that knowledge. Consider yourselves part of the MIC from now on, no more bs about doing this for the betterment of humanity. And to add to that: once any party figures out how to do this it is a matter of time before the rest does too, there is no such thing as a secret. The atomic bomb leaked and so will the recipe for…
I was brought up in a household that was anti military. Only as an adult was I able to form my own opinion. Without a strong military in the past we would certainly not be here today and without a strong military now, who knows what other nation might decide to attack our sovereignty. It's childish to be anti military - it shows you do not understand the interconnectedness of our society - good and bad.
This is a complex topic: I’m a firm believer that Pax Americana has been good for the world as a whole, but there are also no shortage of terrible crimes, and no small number of people who are worse off (including many members of the military itself). I don’t believe it’s “childish” to have serious concerns about the military.