121–130 of 134 posts
Are people seriously thinking of letting LLMs control weapons?
No. But giving someone who isn't the government the power to tell the military what it can and can't do seems like something they should object to categorically rather than case-by-case.
Tangent: is there a future for AI offerings with guardrails? What kind of user wants to pay for a product that occasionally tells you "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"? Why would I pay for a product that doesn't do what I want, despite being capable? I predict that as AI becomes less of a bubble and more of an everyday thing - and thus subject to typical market pressures - offerings with guardrails will st…
I am 100% sure that AI with guardrails will become the dominant models as they become more widely adopted, and the bigger issue you should be concerned with is can you even tell what those guardrails are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's now the Department of War (By the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, it is the Department of Defense, and nothing short of an act of congress changes that. The executive order secondarily naming it the department of war has as much legal weight as my personal order naming it the Department of Brainrot or Whatever.)
This reminds me of that scene where Ned Stark goes and shows a legal document to Cersei and she tears up the piece of paper. It’s DoW because all the official documents, websites, buildings, communications, whatever say it’s DoW, everyone in the chain calls it DoW, etc. Some piece of paper from 1949 doesn’t change that.
Point stands though that the 'pieces of paper' are special, even if the people handling them are lawless. In the long term, cosplaying it as Department of War is just that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's now the Department of War (By the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, it is the Department of Defense, and nothing short of an act of congress changes that. The executive order secondarily naming it the department of war has as much legal weight as my personal order naming it the Department of Brainrot or Whatever.)
This reminds me of that scene where Ned Stark goes and shows a legal document to Cersei and she tears up the piece of paper. It’s DoW because all the official documents, websites, buildings, communications, whatever say it’s DoW, everyone in the chain calls it DoW, etc. Some piece of paper from 1949 doesn’t change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars have seatbelts and other safety measures. Reasonable countries have gun control laws. The list goes on of things that need to be restricted or legislated to add limits. Is this a serious question?
Seatbelts don't block me from getting to my destination, even if I don't use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this standoff is worth at least 10 Super Bowl ads in good publicity. The Pentagon is saying "Claude is the best so we need to use it but you need to stop acting ethically". I'm almost wondering if someone in the administration has a stake in Anthropic because this is such a boost. Their threat to label it a supply chain risk also feels toothless because they've basically admitted that using Claude is a benefit,…
Yes, I agree, and this is a moment to prove they aren’t full of it - and it also seems like a very good move when the rest of the world seems increasingly vary wary of tech that even whiffs of US govt involvement. I am not at all a skeptic anymore on this stuff and the science is well beyond me, but from what I think I know about alignment issues, and anthropic’s intense focus on solving these, it would not surprise…
It's almost as if contextual awareness and consideration are cornerstones of intelligence.
0 - https://www.theverge.com/news/617799/elon-musk-grok-ai-donal...
Let's say Anthropic refuses to do this. What actually happens next? Or lets say they refuse and the government comes against them hard in some way, and Anthropic still really doesn't want to do it, so they just dissolve the entire company. Is that a potential way out, at least? I mean, I realise they'd be losing billions by doing that and putting thousands out of work, but given that unaligned military AI could destr…
Seems like the two main threats are Defense Production Act and Supply Chain Risk. I'd assume Anthropic would sue if either were invoked. I could imagine Supply Chain Risk being easier to push back on because it's pretty clearly being used punitively rather than because of an actual risk. DPA might be a bit harder to push back on if the banned functionality (i.e. mass surveillance and autonomous weapons) exists in the…
Why does this government think that it owns Anthropic when it does not?
Are they demanding elimination of security controls that protect us and them? What would be equal force?
How does the posse comitatus act apply to this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this was more wishcasting than realistic analysis of what Putin would do and how much leverage his pawns had against him.
It might well have been, but the fact that the West first sanctioned the Russian oligarchs (even before 2022) showed that they really did believe in that wishcasting, i.e. they really did believe that the oligarchs will react “economically rational” and do something about Putin so the sanctions would go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this was more wishcasting than realistic analysis of what Putin would do and how much leverage his pawns had against him.
It might well have been, but the fact that the West first sanctioned the Russian oligarchs (even before 2022) showed that they really did believe in that wishcasting, i.e. they really did believe that the oligarchs will react “economically rational” and do something about Putin so the sanctions would go away.