The Buterian Jihad approaches ever faster.
OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
171–180 of 509 posts
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#172OpenAI sure doesn't seem to have much commitment to upholding any principles they set for themselves, do they?
Profit is the only principle that corporations commit to, everything else is PR.
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#173OpenAI sure doesn't seem to have much commitment to upholding any principles they set for themselves, do they?
[deleted]
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#174Slightly off-topic, but it's absolutely shocking to me how quickly OpenAI has managed to do a meteoric PR nosedive. I think within 6 months they've gone from one of the most exciting (yet controversial) non-profits in the world to mistrusted company that it seems most people are rooting against.
I personally welcome cooperation with the Pentagon for OpenAI and other American companies. The disdain that seems to infest so many when it comes to working with our national defense organizations is both annoying and bewilderingly naive and that's even when we take into consideration all of the bad things that happen. Strengthening partnerships with our government certainly doesn't make me mistrust OpenAI.
The US has a fascist running for president right now(who was previously elected!). There is every reason to be worried about new tech adoption by the US military.
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#175Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the world view that my family came from - very leftist and peace loving. "If only everyone put down their guns there would be no need etc etc". But it's not the world we live in - we live in a military world - that's real and not a hope/fantasy about a different civilisation without war or weapons. We have to have a society suited to the world we live in. And by the way I remain very much left wing and at the…
You talk about a country defending itself as if that's what militaries do. The US military has been intervening in the world stage for 80 years at this point. Take any country below the equator and chances are the US has probably used its military against it. That's not defence. You don't collaborate with that actor if you think defence is the goal.
Not Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa!
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#177I was brought up in a household that was anti military. Only as an adult was I able to form my own opinion. Without a strong military in the past we would certainly not be here today and without a strong military now, who knows what other nation might decide to attack our sovereignty. It's childish to be anti military - it shows you do not understand the interconnectedness of our society - good and bad.
The USA has a larger military than the next 5 nations combined. The USA is not under threat from anyone. This would still be true if the US military was a tiny fraction of its current size. The USA does, however, use its vast military to attack other countries without provocation, seemingly to protect commercial interests. I don't think it's "childish" to be suspicious of the US Military. I worry about the mentality…
> The USA is not under threat from anyone.
That is demonstrably false.
In fact, should Texas ever actually secede from the Union they would very quickly find out exactly how much our enemies dislike us.
Hard to believe someone actually typed that sentence.
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could make literally the opposite argument. Other countries antagonize the US because of its military interventionism. If the US had lower military spending, other countries wouldn't feel the need to be aggressive. It's childish to be pro military. It shows you think arbitrary lines on a map determine who's good or bad.
I don’t think that opposite argument works given the current geopolitical situation which has nothing to do with the US being aggressive. Russia would have very likely completed its conquest of Ukraine by now and moved on to the Baltic states (NATO relies on US military spending to compensate for lack of spending of other NATO members). Taiwan would belong to China yesterday, along with the rest of the Indo-Pacific.
It's disingenuous to ignore the effect the aggression of the cold war and its aftermath had on the current Russian situation.
With Taiwan, it's a delicate situation and I'm not familiar enough with it to comment on it.
But I notice you conveniently left out all the times the US just did interventionism because it was convenient. Iraq? Most recently Venezuela? If we go back long enough, how about literally all of South America?
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#179Slightly off-topic, but it's absolutely shocking to me how quickly OpenAI has managed to do a meteoric PR nosedive. I think within 6 months they've gone from one of the most exciting (yet controversial) non-profits in the world to mistrusted company that it seems most people are rooting against.
Outside of the few people who still write 'heh, "Open"AI amirite guys? XD' I doubt most people even in tech have much of an opinion about OpenAI in either direction beyond the fact that they make ChatGPT and ChatGPT is awesome.
Even the Sam Altman drama is confusing and it's not obvious what to think of it.
Re: OpenAI drops ban on military tools to partner with The Pentagon
#180They haven't changed their principles page yet: https://openai.com/safety-standards ``` Minimize harm We will build safety into our AI tools where possible, and work hard to aggressively reduce harms posed by the misuse or abuse of our AI tools. ``` And I think they can still do that. If they corner every big usecase while they are the top ai models - they get to set the standard and define safety for all upcoming ai…
> If not openai, it would have been some other company... This does not justify anything and never has. I'm not even saying that what OpenAI is doing is bad (I don't think it's inherently bad to work with the military). But if one believes that it is bad, then "well someone was going to do it so it may as well be them" doesn't remotely hold water.
Doesn’t it, though? Especially in the context of military, if some potential enemy has no moral qualms using new technology to kill you, doesn’t it mean you’re somewhat forced to provide a defense or die a martyr?
This is sort of what happened with nuclear weapons and the race. The strategy developed afterwards was mutually assured destruction but that probably won’t work here.