Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

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

#61

Post by pdimitar »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #56
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see it as saying that the peace activists are on a path that will not actually lead to peace, but rather to war, and those preparing for war are on a path that will actually lead to peace. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.

This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.

Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc.

War is real.

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

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pdimitar wrote: post #61
unclebucknasty wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.

Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc. War is real.

> War is real

This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)

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

#63

Post by subjectsigma »

wolverine876 wrote: post #24
justin66 wrote: post #2

Ah, British press. It's a bit sleazy the way the quote was placed in a headline above a photo of the CEO of Palantir, who is certainly a douchebag but did not compare himself to Oppenheimer. That was some other douchebag. There was some useful stuff in the article itself.

That's really looking for problems. The Palantir CEO said things much more extreme: As the moderator asked general questions about the panelists’ views on the future of war, Schmidt and Cohen answered cautiously. But Karp, who’s known as a provocateur, aggressively condoned violence, often peering into the audience with hungry eyes, palpably desperate for claps, boos or shock. He began by saying that the US has to “s…

Whoa, hold up for a second.

> He began by saying that the US has to “scare our adversaries to death” in war. Referring to Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, he said: “If what happened to them happened to us, there’d be a hole in the ground somewhere.

You cited this as an example of an extreme opinion, but this is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War.

We don’t want to go to war -> Enemies won’t attack us if they think they can’t accomplish their goals by doing so -> Make sure they understand they will die if they attack us -> no war! (At least, in theory.)

You may disagree with that opinion but it’s not at all extreme, that’s the mindset most of the military has. And it is rooted in the desire to prevent large scale conflict.

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

#64

Post by unclebucknasty »

greenavocado wrote: post #14
totetsu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking forward to the future where Elon can drone strike me from space because of something I said on twitter.

Musk is just the useful tool to get weapons into space, not the final server of death warrants. That responsibility falls onto the deep state.

Can you describe this deep state? Is it in the room with us now?

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

#65

Post by mupuff1234 »

nen-nomad wrote: post #29

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

If you think the world is better off with the US as a global policing power then one could argue that having an overwhelming force is key to sustaining peace.

So war isn't peace but being 10x stronger than everyone can be.

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

#67

Post by pdimitar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62
pdimitar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc. War is real.

> War is real This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)

I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.

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

#68

Post by JumpCrisscross »

croes wrote: post #51
legohead wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more lame to disregard this ideology. What if Germany had the nuke first? "oh well, at least we held to our morals" There's this ideal human sociology, and then there's the reality of what we really are. It takes a unique person to accept it, and do the wrong thing for the right reason, and also be able to steer things in the eventual right direction.

How did the Atom bomb stop Nazi Germany? And do you think dropping the bomb on Germany would have humbled them or would they seek revenge in the long term? The bombs brought as MAD and that only works as long all parties try to stay alive and don't there is a paradise in the afterlife if they die for a holy cause.

> How did the Atom bomb stop Nazi Germany?

It didn't. The fear was that the Nazis might develop nuclear weapons and use them to end the war on its own terms [1].

> do you think dropping the bomb on Germany would have humbled them or would they seek revenge in the long term?

Yes, our eternal enemy the Japanese.

> bombs brought as MAD and that only works as long all parties try to stay alive and don't there is a paradise in the afterlife if they die for a holy cause

Fair enough.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilard_letter

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

#69

Post by subjectsigma »

pc86 wrote: 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…

I believe we call this “crafting a narrative”

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

#70

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tensor wrote: post #52
ninininino wrote: post #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 be…

Nothing about this is "AI controls guns/bombs/nukes." The AI simply gives predictions that humans must decide to accept or reject. And no, I don't buy at all that people on the ground in an active war scenario would have any sort of macro view at all. Without more to back it up I don't buy your claim.

> I don't buy at all that people on the ground in an active war scenario would have any sort of macro view

They didn't claim this. The claim was that someone on the ground can better discriminate a combatant from a civilian than someone in the air. Modern warfare makes all of this less relevant, unfortunately, since infantry's work is less about shooting the enemy than protecting assets and calling in air and artillery strikes.

Post reply on HN