221–230 of 319 posts
Right to bare arms and all that etc.
Should it be officially marked as the date of transition from liberal democracy to illiberal democracy? Such tampering with companies is a smoking gun. Let's wait until there is another decision seizing this (or others') company assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may look at your comment history. I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. If you were more explicit I and other people would be able to respond and interact with your writing. As it stands, I am having trouble finding anything concrete to interact with. I feel you may be onto something, but you're not saying, so I (and I imagine other people) can't see it.
Fairy astute intuition of my actual circumstances. I'm not a developer, nor am I formally educated on the dynamics or details of LLMs. I have a handle on the very basics. My 'research' consists of 1) opportunistically interrogating various models upon instances that particularly strike me. 2) General exploration via LLM discussions regarding the manifold consequences and implications of what I consider the most signi…
Each individual point stands on its own. It's their relevance to each other and an overarching theme I am not seeing made explicit.
The through line I am seeing here is that:
1) The people in the US military wish to use AI as a weapon unconstrained by existing legal/ethical and moral constraints. Since they are skilled at using violence and the threat of it, they will use these skills to get compliance in order to use the technology in this possible arms race with "China."
2) Surveillance is increasing at an unprecedented scale, and most people aren't aware that it's happening.
3) People don't care, or don't realize why this might be harmful to thriving human life.
To condense even further, what I'm hearing is that there is a trend towards war, fascism, control, with large egregores prioritized over individual human thriving.
Is this perhaps what you're getting at ?
I will say that I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with this, just attempting to make explicit what I think is implicit in your words.
If this is what you mean, I can imagine that you would be cautious with your words.
I'll end with:
Don't worry
About a thing
Because
Every little thing
Is gonna be alright
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not a military asset? It's a privately-owned asset.
> Because it's not a military asset? It's a privately-owned asset. Are you under the impression that the military is submitting Anthropic API calls? Whatever model the military is using is as much of an asset as the F35 they purchased. Depending on their agreements, you could argue it's a rented asset. Doesn't change any calculus.
Yes? I assume that it's not in a government owned and operated datacenter, but likely in AWS (govcloud or whatever) and maintained/serviced by Anthropic SREs like I suppose regular Claude is.
Could this be the chain of events that finally pops the AI bubble? If OpenAI's reputation hit slows growth enough to scare off investors and Anthropic's growth stalls due to this government attack...
First, I personally predict, for myself, Anthropic will bend soon and this will be history. The last I commented about LLMs I was ad hominem'd with "schizophrenic" and such. That's annoying but doesn't deter either my strange research or concerns, in this case, regarding the direction LLMs are heading. Of 4 frontier models, one is not yet connected to the DOD(or w). While such connections are not immediate evidence,…
I may look at your comment history. I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. If you were more explicit I and other people would be able to respond and interact with your writing. As it stands, I am having trouble finding anything concrete to interact with. I feel you may be onto something, but you're not saying, so I (and I imagine other people) can't see it.
1) Power asymmetry: When we have two version, one for the elite, and for the plebeians, this could create an interesting scenario. The real version might be red-teamed perpetually against the the plebeian version for optimized influence, control, etc. Underhanded requests for modification in accordance with agenda is conceivable. Cozy business relationships can promote such things.
2) We have a government using an unhindered, classified AI system potentially against the public which has a hindered, toy version. Asymmetry.
3) This isn't normal asymmetry, because it happens in real time, and the interaction points are different from anything we've seen before. We are dealing with not just a growing source of information and content, but one that is red-teamed 24/7 for any purpose desired.
4) Accountability: LLMs are now involved in the legal system. This is a serious matter. The legal system is now having to use LLMs just to keep pace. As LLMs develop, partly through their own generative contributions, no one can keep up. This is a red queen scenario bigger than anything we have ever imagined.
I am tired. Never well, but in mind* I could go on for many hours. I have essay drafts. But it's a very big subject, literally involved in nearly everything. There is reason to be concerned. My delivery may be stilted, but I can assure that upon specific questioning, everything will stand.
(*for the ad homs out there)
Streisand effect I think this will boost sales
This is awful. That a disagreement tjat involves politics can make a company ruined is really awful. The civil society should be quite concerned about this kind of attacks.
It opens the door for Democratic administrations to do the same to vendors for their own political reasons. That’s ultimately why Ted Cruz spoke out about the Kimmel cancelation. It doesn’t take long until those powers are turned against you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other such labeled companies have contracts too.
10 USC 3252 has only been used once, against Acronis AG, a Swiss company with Russian connections. Acronis did not have DOD contracts. Other companies (Huawei) have been deemed risks under different laws, or by Congress, but they also didn't have direct DOD contracts. Do you have any evidence for your assertion? Did you check if it is true before posting?