11–20 of 308 posts
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
When my sister and I would play monopoly as kids, we had lost the manual so whenever we didn’t like the outcome of whatever happened, we would make up rules about what was right. Technically then, it was very easy stay compliant while still being able to do well because we could rewrite the rules. Also, since I was older I feel like I was able to get away with those redefinitions a lot more often…
If this were 3M making nasty stuff for Northrop to put in bombs and drop on brown people or Exxon scheming up something bad in Alaska or bulldozing a national park for solar panels or some other legacy BigCo doing slimy things that are in the interests of them and the government but against the interest of the public they'd have 40yr of preexisting trade group publications, bought and paid for academic and media chatter, etc, etc, that they could point to and say "look, this is fine because the stuff we paid into in advance to legitimize these sorts of things as they come up says it is" though obviously they'd use very different words.
It's pretty funny how these guys are all becoming some kind of internet version of, like, Halliburton. It seems pretty desperate. B2C and B2B applications didn't pan out I guess?
Will lawful use be determined in secret courts a la NSA and FISA?
Doubtful it will even get that far, the DoJ will simply draft an appropriate fig leaf memo with a predetermined conclusion and the government will simply plow on ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
I am kind of mad at James Cameron here. Skynet was evil but interesting. Reallife controlled by Google is evil but not interesting - it is flat out annoying.
Who defines "lawful" if Google and the Pentagon disagree? > The classified deal apparently doesn’t allow Google to veto how the government will use its AI models. Seems concerning?
Congress and the courts obviously.
If you think there's a hole in the law tell your congressman, don't, for some reason, try and put Google or any Ai company above the government.