What’s the problem and why is it newsworthy? Serious question.
[flagged]
Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
21–30 of 114 posts
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#22There is a difference between allowing use and supporting a use case. Supporting would be, for example, adding military specific training to the model. If we were talking about a car or a tractor nobody would bat an eye. Should companies not sell potatoes to the military? To be clear, I am not a fan of developing for the military, but the idea that a TOS will stop AI being weaponized is a bit naive. Similarly, if the…
Also, more pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be all that "hard" to recreate current LLM state of the art from scratch now that the techniques are known. It's just really expensive in terms of hardware.
Which is a non-issue for the US military. Not a TOS, nor cost, nor technical expertise is going to stop this sort of technology from being applied to armed forces.
If anyone's upset at Meta for this, they're getting angry at the wrong people...
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#23Reddit and Twitter are flooded with semi automated political bots. And it will just get worse. Given that Llama is free to use why does Mera even have to give permission, how would they know?
It will reinforce the political lines of those with the most resources/motivation who can afford the most human like bots in the greatest number. No way mere humans with only a single manual account each can hope to be influential on those topics.
The sooner everyone realizes this the better. I think it means we need to move towards verified user accounts, that tell people you are a real person in the actual country, in any place where there are parties who have interests in manipulation.
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#24Local Llama 3.1 8B
Q: Does this this title sounds like clickbait? "Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes"
A: Yes, that title sounds like clickbait. Here's why:
1. It's sensational: The word "Permits" implies a significant or surprising decision, which grabs attention. 2. It's vague: The title doesn't provide much context about what kind of military purposes or what specific A.I. models are involved. 3. It's designed to elicit a reaction: The title is likely intended to provoke a strong emotional response, such as surprise, concern, or excitement, rather than simply informing readers about a fact.
A more neutral and informative title might be: "Meta Expands Use of A.I. Models for U.S. Military Applications"
However, it's worth noting that the title still has some implications of significance and interest, and it's not necessarily a straightforward clickbait title.
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because almost all news is just looking for a reason, any reason, to support some kind of narrative of angst and outrage to drive engagement.
Joke conspiracy theory: it's all a conspiracy of mass media to paint AI as bad as they can, so when it becomes more energy-efficient it won't be able to disrupt their deceptive practices by de-hyping the headlines replacing them with impartial summaries (since all LLMs really can do are text transformations), thus upsetting the hidden attention economy. /bs :o) For real, though, is these something already out there t…
Is there a browser plugin that:
1. clicks the link 2. reads the article 3. rewrites the link title in less clickbaity terms?
It seems possible.
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#26Might as well. You can't stop foreign militaries from getting their hands on it and doing the same
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#27'Permits'. The same way I permit tax agencies to take my money I suppose?
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, more pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be all that "hard" to recreate current LLM state of the art from scratch now that the techniques are known. It's just really expensive in terms of hardware.
Which is a non-issue for the US military. Not a TOS, nor cost, nor technical expertise is going to stop this sort of technology from being applied to armed forces. If anyone's upset at Meta for this, they're getting angry at the wrong people...
I think its fair to feel like telling a snake to not act like a snake is terrible (aka the military acting like the military). the turtle doesn't have to join it. Thats an option. assuming its inevitability, that even attempting to shame meta is a waste or threatening to cut access to talent or users, means change cant happen
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#29Chinese researchers develop AI model for military use on back of Meta's Llama https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/c...
The timing must be in response to that? Perhaps Facebook is thinking "well, we're obviously not going to sue in Chinese courts, so we may as well loosen that rule for allied nations" ie sort of leveling the asymmetric playing field
Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a non-issue for the US military. Not a TOS, nor cost, nor technical expertise is going to stop this sort of technology from being applied to armed forces. If anyone's upset at Meta for this, they're getting angry at the wrong people...
I think its fair to feel like telling a snake to not act like a snake is terrible (aka the military acting like the military). the turtle doesn't have to join it. Thats an option. assuming its inevitability, that even attempting to shame meta is a waste or threatening to cut access to talent or users, means change cant happen
I don't see why I should be mad at Meta and not the armed forces that adopt this technology inappropriately.