I don't think we won't get AGI if Anthropic were to implode, and frankly, right now, I'd rather have someone say clearly, "They cannot stomach the existence of someone telling them 'No' or adhering to moral principles. Like spoiled children they can't hear the former and are terrified by later because it might expose them to the condemnation they deserve."
Where things stand with the Department of War
111–120 of 862 posts
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#112> I apologize for the tone of the post What a world we live in now where private companies are apologising for the "tone" of their speech while official representatives of the government daily express blatant lies and misrepresentations without the slightest fear of consequence. It really is incredibly sad that what was one of the most respected countries in the world has descended to this - an utter mockery of a fun…
It’s a business decision.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk. Obviously anyone who has used LLMs know they are not on par with humans. There also needs to be an accountability framework for when software makes the wrong decision. Who gets fi…
I think it's the opposite. The human cost of war is part of what keeps the USA from getting into wars more than it already is - no politician wants a second Vietnam. If war is safe to wage, then it just means we'll do it more and kill more people around the globe.
Safe for whom?
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and even their two exceptions, only one is on moral grounds. They don't want to provide tools for autonomous killing machines because the technology isn't good enough, yet. Once that 'yet' is passed they will be fine supplying that capability. Anthropic is clearly the better company over OpenAI, but that doesn't mean they are good. 'lesser evil' is the correct term here for sure.
Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk. Obviously anyone who has used LLMs know they are not on par with humans. There also needs to be an accountability framework for when software makes the wrong decision. Who gets fi…
What do you mean, "hallucinates and kills people"? Killing people is the thing the military is using them for; it's not some accidental side effect. It's the "moral choice" the same way a cruise missile is — some person half a world away can lean back in their chair, take a sip of coffee, click a few buttons and end human lives, without ever fully appreciating or caring about what they've done.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because it hurts its position either in court or during negotiations with the DoW.
As much as Trump and Hegseth would like it to be called the Department of War, it still takes an act of Congress to change the name of the Department of Defense. No reason to call it by anything else until that happens.
Department of peace sounds even better than defense.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#116Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#117Not sure why Dario apologized for the internal memo leak. Seems like an odd thing to backtrack on.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy or some 4D chess business move. Dario is a morally motivated person and regretted the tone that was being conveyed in that memo, so he apologized.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you graduated in 2007, your classmates were born around 1985. Their parents were mostly born in the mid 50s to the mid 60s and came to political consciousness either during the Vietnam War or immediately thereafter. No war since has been even close to as unpopular or frankly as salient. It’s the passing out of cultural relevance of that war that you are noticing.
> No war since has been even close to as unpopular or frankly as salient. Iraq. Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too. Also keep in mind when making comparisons that the Vietnam war was not unpopular with Americans at the beginning, and many people justified it all throughout, using language that will be similar to observers of later wars.
> Iraq
Not in same ballpark. There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one.
> Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too.
No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture. Especially on the saliency axis.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the opposite. The human cost of war is part of what keeps the USA from getting into wars more than it already is - no politician wants a second Vietnam. If war is safe to wage, then it just means we'll do it more and kill more people around the globe.
Safe for whom?
Safe for the aggressors, I mean. If war is easy and cheap for us to wage, we will do more of it, and likely make the world a worse place.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Military isn't quite as aggressively catering to the people who historically have bullied techies as they used to. Aside from that - there's a lot more people in tech now. It grew too fast too quick to maintain all the values it had back in the 00's and earlier.
[flagged]
Values relating to mistrust of the military (as per the context of the post I responded to) as well as values relating to ownership of the tech you bought and of personal privacy.
Get off your high horse and stop talking down to a person you don't know. Take your anger out on someone else.