251–260 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought what I said was borderline, but we seem to believe in free speech in this country and here in this place. And you haven't disagreed with what I said, only how I said it ;)
They'll say your 1A doesn't exist here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's always an option to stop. We can choose civility over barbarity, stop trying to kill people over 1000+ year old dick waving contests, and stop threatening each other with doomsday weapons because your grandpa shot my grandpa. Just because our leaders are too stupid and cowardly doesn't mean there's no option.
Sounds good! Please convince Vladimir Putin to choose civility over barbarity, then get back to us so we can discuss options.
This all works if you assume that any action the government takes must be “lawful”. The assumption here is that the Pentagon is obeying the law and any unlawful use would go through normal reporting / violation channels - same as any illegal order or violation or whistleblower report. The Pentagon does not want Google or anyone else deciding what they can and cannot use their AI for. They’re saying we won’t break the…
I look at this as a case of "pick your battles." In war, the civilians can't audit every move of the military. (It's impractical, both for reacting timely, and for keeping secrets from the enemy.) If the military doesn't work with Google, they will work with someone else who might not put the same amount of pressure on the military about the practical limits on AI. Or, even worse, our enemy might use a significantly…
> Calling people who work on AI for wartime purposes immoral is fundamentally immoral when AI in war replaces the need for human casulties.
This is naive. It will only reduce casualties for the side with the AI, and will very likely embolden countries to fight more wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "lawful" always seems to get dragged out when people in power are doing some especially heinous rulemaking, like throwing a hissy fit over a single company trying to voluntarily draw a line at domestic surveillance and fully automated killchains.
Anthropic wanted the ability to verify compliance whereas OAI and Google are fine with "trust us". Which is how it always is, and always has been. For better or worse, the government is the one who audits, and has it's own internal systems for self audits. So no one except them tells them what they can or cannot do. The government would never put itself in a position where civilians died because Amodei didn't like th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what immense power?
You don't think Google having control over the most used email, most used browser, most used search engine, most used video website, and most used phone OS gives them immense power?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…doing this kind of work with the federal government. That is clearly what they are saying. You stripped all context from the discussion. You’re looking for the least defensible, worse interpretation of their comment.
No. Their comment was: “Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.” But, “…doing this kind of work with the federal government.” is added context that was not there and is based on your own interpretation. The language of the parent comment charges that simply working at a company that is engaging in this makes one complicit in an immoral act, and the complicity itself is immoral. I disagree…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds good! Please convince Vladimir Putin to choose civility over barbarity, then get back to us so we can discuss options.
We aren’t Russian and Putin is not our leader. We can choose how we behave and operate. This is like saying we should use chemical weapons if someone else deploys one. You’re speaking as if it’s all so binary. “Do what they do or you lose.”
This whole thing is sorta blown out of context; but it does make explosive journalism, sell a bunch of ad revenue, and give Anthropic a lot of publicity (whom I think is just amoral here). The bottom line is in the past the US government has acquired weapons/tech with deals like "it will never be used for X purpose". However, as far as my research has shown, it has never accepted deal where said weapons or tech has s…
> The bottom line is in the past the US government has acquired weapons/tech with deals like "it will never be used for X purpose". However, as far as my research has shown, it has never accepted deal where said weapons or tech has self-policing features. Some examples of past US govt use of tech with self-policing features: * DJI drones have historically had geofencing around restricted areas (e.g. airports, DC). Ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because the articles are talking about how the AI will be used in immoral ways, and that the people who know that and continue doing the work must be morally compromised. I know that there might be $several ways those highly-paid engineers might still rationalize their work. Some of them might have ideological reasons to treat entire classes of people as unworthy of life. Within the model of their ideologies…
In absoluteness you lose your credibility except when rallying people to arms.
I actually don't think it's so nuanced. We know (from its spat with Anthropic) that the government wants the ability to use AI to implement mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous killings. We also have ample data that this administration takes the law as a mere suggestion. It's imperative not to make their abuses easier.
Google's researchers aren't stuck there; their skills are in extraordinary demand and I'm sure Anthropic, for example, would hire them in an instant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has a monopoly because of the internet's insistence on ad blocking, and outright indignant refusal to dare pay a greedy company for thinking they could ask for money for a "free" web service. It's basically impossible to get off the ground competing against google when 30-40% of people are just freeloading your service, and 80-90% think the internet is an ethereal realm that everyone could have ad and subscrip…
I've heard dozens of people say this (and I've even said it myself) but I don't think it actually holds water. People will pay for things if those things don't suck, and it's not even hard to find examples of that (even with Google products no less!). For search, Kagi has had a growing fanbase for a couple years now, but let's take things that have been easy to get for free for decades: Movies. People have been, with…
1% of the people pay, 60% watch ads, 39% are crusaders who conveniently are morally obligated to not pay or compensate for anything (but have their costs covered by the other two groups, who complain about ads/costs but somehow are blind to the dead weight they are dragging around).
Worst of all is that it's impossible to have an honest conversation about it, because they people who haven't seen an ad or paid for a movie in 20 years go absolutely insane when called out. YouTube creators talk about it in private, but they would never dare say anything on their channel. Ad blocking is practically a religion.