That was a typo. The agreement is actually to use it for any awful use.
Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
281–290 of 308 posts
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#282AI going to be doing more lawful genocide in near future
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we need more than 1% conversion though? As long as the company is sustainable then that's sufficient to justify the company's existence. I think it says more about a lot of these services in that they're so shitty that they people will only use them if they're "free"; if Google or Facebook or Instagram or TikTok aren't good enough services to justify people paying for it, then maybe they shouldn't exist? You can't…
Then accept the equilibrium of Google being the god of the internet. If people refuse to pay, refuse to view ads, and are happy to let the suckers like you (and me) carry the cost, then no one should be complaining about the impenetrable giants who reign over us. The internet can reap what it sowed. I'm burning 3GB a month loading ads on my phone so others can view ad free? Maybe I should petition the IRS to let me w…
But there are companies that charge money and manage to be successful, as I stated.
Even before the internet most businesses failed. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for dumb reasons. Before people expected everything to be free. Pointing to a company that you liked failing doesn't really prove anything; there's always a billion variables that can contribute to corporate failures and saying "LOL PEOPLE WON'T PAY FOR THINGS AD BLOCK BAD I HAVE TO PAY BANDWIDTH" doesn't really say anything.
Just because you can find some companies that charged money and failed doesn't change my point at all. Netflix has become successful enough to be in the running to buy Warner Bros. Netflix is an internet-first company that doesn't do anything for free and yet it's getting to a point where it's able to buy a very large legacy media company. It has been competing with free YouTube content and ThePirateBay.
I don't see at all how this proves that I need to "accept the equilibrium of Google".
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#284And that is news-worthy because unlawful use is normal?
The deal is in contrast to Anthropic and OpenAI who wanted additional restrictions regarding the use of their models for autonomous weapon control and domestic mass surveillance. The US government agreed to these terms in the case of OpenAI [0], yet publicly denounced Anthropic for wanting the same thing [1].
[0] https://openai.com/de-DE/index/our-agreement-with-the-depart...
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-...
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should you not be burdened with that? Surely you are responsible for the consequences of what you do, no matter how indirect? After all, we live in physical reality, not in some world of laws. If you cause something you cause that thing. You are reponsible, even if it is through some long chain.
> Surely you are responsible for the consequences of what you do, no matter how indirect? No, that’s preposterous. You are not responsible for the actions of others simply because your actions put them in a place to perform said actions. That seems like a very stressful way to go through life.
You have caused them. You exist in the environment you exist, not in some other environment.
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#286Who could have seen this one coming. From yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-pentagon-classified-u... ("Hundreds of Google workers urge CEO to refuse classified AI work with Pentagon"). Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.
Why is it morally compromising to work with the military of the country you live in?
because the country you live in is the united states? this is not complicated
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#287If something can't be profitable charge it to the government for multiple times and make it profitable and let taxpayers ie the citizens hold the burden. I never thought I would see this scam outside a poor corrupt country but damn US is falling fast.
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha! If the Congress did diddly squat about eavesdropping on them by organizations that aren’t supposed to spy on citizens back in the Obama days (we also spied on allies’s governments but that’s kinda what all of them do) there is no hope in them reining things back at all… for mere hoi polloi.
I guess we have to appoint Amodei and Altman as our benevolent dictators to keep Congress in check!
They're allowed to say no. The ability I have to say no to you doesn't mean I rule over you.
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it's basically an extremely high-stakes version of the (possibly apocryphal) Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Most people (at least the people I've talked to, which admittedly is somewhat of a lefty bubble but I think even more generally) agree that companies getting to or close to "monopoly" status is a pretty…
> they suddenly remember who their campaign contributors are, and can then create reasons to avoid actually solving any of these problems. There are very real concerns when you break up a company though. Rockefeller's wealth shot up a lot when Standard Oil was broken up. That could easily make a politician that's "politician out to get the big companies" into "politician making billionaires richer."
> Rockefeller's wealth shot up a lot when Standard Oil was broken up.
Most owners (weighted by share) do NOT seem to want their big monopolies broken up, despite the track record of Standard Oil.
Re: Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
> big tech is new to the game and doesn't have an existing regulatory capture system already up and running The career officials in the Obama FTC started proceedings for an antitrust lawsuit against Google over a decade ago. The political appointees (of both parties) shut it down. It seems to me that regulatory capture has been working for Google for some time now.
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…
No, Google had significant power over "who gets to buy and at what price" long before ad blocking caught on. Don't blame ad blockers for sabotaging your plan to get rich.