Live data from Hacker News

'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

theguardian.com

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#31
post #4

> I shouldn’t have been surprised by anything I saw or heard at this conference. But when it ended, and I departed DC for home, it felt like my life force had been completely sucked out of my body. > More specifically, it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death. The vast majority of people there fell into group one. > I walked o…

> it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death Seriously. What a juvenile way to frame war. War is absolutely about contest and strategy—and yes, money—and it also causes death. It’s always horrible, more horrible than the belligerents imagined at the outset. But it’s part of reality, like sickness and disease, and while I think w…

If I had to divide this war into two groups, it'd be the people that stoke fear and hatred by committing war crimes in order to consolidate the personal power and wealth, and the people having the war crimes committed against them.

Note that both groups are spread pretty evenly across Israel and Palestine.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#32
post #22

Palantir's entire business model is taking on customers/projects that the rest of Silicon Valley refuses to. Not only is there an "underserved" audience, they get to charge a premium and for worse products. The irony is that this is a good reminder of the harsh realities that Oppenheimer himself clearly grappled with - if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will .

>if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will. Pretty lame excuse. If I don't sell drugs, some else will. If you're doing it, you are already the one with less scruples. Do you think the victims care about the scruples of the perpetrator?

No the ones with less scruples are cutting the drug supply with harmful stuff including but not limited to xylazine and fentanyl/nitazene analogs

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#33

Palantir's entire business model is taking on customers/projects that the rest of Silicon Valley refuses to. Not only is there an "underserved" audience, they get to charge a premium and for worse products. The irony is that this is a good reminder of the harsh realities that Oppenheimer himself clearly grappled with - if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will .

It feels very difficult to get a good sense of Palantir's quality. All I know is the rabid fanbase the company has, most of whom have never used a single peoduct they make. I'd love to see some authentic experience reports.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#35
post #22

Palantir's entire business model is taking on customers/projects that the rest of Silicon Valley refuses to. Not only is there an "underserved" audience, they get to charge a premium and for worse products. The irony is that this is a good reminder of the harsh realities that Oppenheimer himself clearly grappled with - if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will .

>if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will. Pretty lame excuse. If I don't sell drugs, some else will. If you're doing it, you are already the one with less scruples. Do you think the victims care about the scruples of the perpetrator?

I think the comparison is more along the lines "might as well supply clean syringes instead of let things go their inevitable course otherwise". The point isn't about the victims then loving you and thinking you're such a stand up person, it's about why you might as well be the one that's hated but at least you know it was done better than it would have. Importantly, this is only said to apply when you are convinced there is some inevitable humanity destroying technology and you think you can deliver it in a less destroying way than it will be otherwise. It doesn't apply to things that are already present, like selling drugs.

That said, I don't think most of what Palantir actually delivers on fits this mold. They're just generally cruddy.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death Seriously. What a juvenile way to frame war. War is absolutely about contest and strategy—and yes, money—and it also causes death. It’s always horrible, more horrible than the belligerents imagined at the outset. But it’s part of reality, like sickness and disease, and while I think w…

Honestly the world would be better off if everyone "stuck their head in the sand" regarding warfare. Like quarantining disease, everyone just needs to calm down.

> Like quarantining disease

This is the opposite of sticking your head in the sand about disease. It's doing something about it, even at personal cost.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#37

Palantir's entire business model is taking on customers/projects that the rest of Silicon Valley refuses to. Not only is there an "underserved" audience, they get to charge a premium and for worse products. The irony is that this is a good reminder of the harsh realities that Oppenheimer himself clearly grappled with - if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will .

> The irony is that this is a good reminder of the harsh realities that Oppenheimer himself clearly grappled with - if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will.

The dilemma was quite different: if you don't do it, your enemy will beat you to it and will kill you and the people you love. It was a very utilitarian, wartime calculation.

The soft variant you're quoting is just a license to misbehave because others also misbehave - and I don't think that was Oppenheimer's qualm.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#38
> “Let’s say you’re operating in a place with a lot of civilian areas, like Gaza,” I asked the engineers afterward. “Does Palantir prevent you from ‘nominating a target’ in a civilian location?”

> Short answer, no. “The end user makes the decision,” the woman said.

It seems to me that the author of this piece doesn't understand that any system that claimed to be able to predict civilian's and combatant's locations better than someone with boots on the ground or eyes in the air on the target would be lying.

Look at something like Healthcare charts. Nurses and doctors don't have time to keep systems updated or do data entry because they are busy triaging patients and saving lives. The first thing to go when you have ten things you're supposed to do but only have time for five is data entry. This is the bog standard complaint against all the technology being inserted into healthcare.

War is the same but inverse (serving out death not serving out life), there isn't time to sit around filling in info.

Armed conflicts are dynamic environments with a need for fast decisions on limited information and unfortunately it isn't really possible to have a Google maps interface with neatly labeled bounding boxes of "don't worry the bad guys aren't allowed to go inside these buildings, only the civilians".

But if anyone would be able to keep a grasp on that information in order to limit civilian targets it would likely be those on the ground who wouldn't have time to enter their latest civilian vs non-civilian intel into a GUI for updating some targeting system, so you'd want that ultimate decision to be exactly where they've placed it, in the hands of the final end user.

Anything else would be exactly the sort of "AI controls the guns/bombs/nukes" nightmare that we all want to avoid. Imagine the end user knows that the GUI is exactly wrong, the area marked in the system to contain civilians actually contains combatants and the building next door is marked in the system as containing combatants but really contains civilians (they have had camera on both or someone with binoculars observing or something) - and the system doesn't let them 'nominate the target' that they need to. At that point you can either nominate the civilian containing building and select a munition that will destroy both targets or you can do nothing.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#39

> “The peace activists are war activists,” Karp insisted. “We are the peace activists.” They are literally saying, "War is Peace".

War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace.

> War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace

Better example is nuclear deterrence, which has effectively ended direct great power state-on-state conflict. War is never peace. But preparing for war protects an existing one.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#40

> “The peace activists are war activists,” Karp insisted. “We are the peace activists.” They are literally saying, "War is Peace".

War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace.

As we've seen by the wonderful results in Afghanistan.
Post reply on HN