Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Insults are not part of the community guidelines
Being childlike is a blessing and a compliment in my book.
Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
201–210 of 567 posts
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#202Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#203Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
With or without autonomous weapons, war is always a sordid business with 'dead babies', this is not in itself a fact that tells us what weapons systems to develop.
Yet there are boundaries on which weapons we can and cannot develop: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological etc.
Indeed. Usually weapons are banned if the damage is high and indiscriminate while the military usefulness is low.
There is at this moment little evidence that autonomous weapons will cause more collateral damage than artillery shells and regular air strikes. The military usefulness on other other hand seems to be very high and increasing.
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> than a chatgpt style Literally just remove the first 4 words and keep the rest of the comment the same, and it's a better comment. No idea what chatgpt has to do with it.
That would be removing information and strictly worse that including it. Communication is about communicating information, sometimes a terse short and aggressive style is the most effective way. It activates neurons in a way a paragraph of polite argumentation doesn't.
the contention of your respondents and downvoters is that regardless of your intention, the extra information actually communicated is "i'm an asshole".
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#206I want to be upset over this in an exasperated expression of oddly naive "why can't we all get along?" frame of mind. I want to, because I know how I would like the world to look like, but as a species we, including myself, continually fail to disappoint when it comes nearly guaranteed self-destruction. I want to get upset over it, but I sadly recognize the reality of the why this is not surprising to anyone. We actu…
> We actually have competitors in that space, who will do that and more
So what? Can't Google find other sources of revenue than building weapons?
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#207Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
Weapons inherently aren’t evil, which is why everyone has kitchen knives. People use weapons to do evil. The problem with building AI weapons is that eventually it will be in the hands of people who are morally bankrupt and therefore will use them to do evil.
“…so which is it then? Is it really robots that are wired to kill people, or the humans wiring them?”
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#208Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
Weapons inherently aren’t evil, which is why everyone has kitchen knives. People use weapons to do evil. The problem with building AI weapons is that eventually it will be in the hands of people who are morally bankrupt and therefore will use them to do evil.
Then we should be encouraging their development by the governments of liberal democratic nations as opposed to authoritarian regimes.
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Technically the US has never dropped nukes, those were atomic bombs. Second, don’t understand how the atomic bomb argument makes sense. Germany was developing them and would have used them if it got there first. Are you suggesting the US really is truly the only nation that would ever have used atomic weapons? That if Japan made it first they would have spared China or the US?
[flagged]
Re: Google drops pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance
#210Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
> all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief It isn't this that's insane, but a total belief purity of weapons that is.
You don't have to have a "total believe in the purity of weapons" to recognize that military tech is a regrettable but necessary thing for a nation to pursue.