Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#371

Post by tedd4u »

tedd4u wrote: post #305
arttaboi wrote: post #255

BTW, this deal went south when Anthropic argued that AI systems should never make kill decisions without meaningful human oversight. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/26/anthropic-pe...

We deserve to know if Claude was involved with targeting the girls’ school that was bombed in the first hours of the attack on Iran. 50-100+ girls are reported to have been killed. Claude is integrated into Palantir’s Project Maven targeting system. The Pentagon has touted how many more targets they were able to attack with this system (1,000’s). NY Times: Analysis Suggests School Was Hit Amid U.S. Strikes on Iranian…

Reuters now reporting "U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children"

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-investigation-p...

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#372

Post by queenkjuul »

xdennis wrote: post #249
agigao wrote: post #140

Around 10 years ago, in college, in Calculus class I had a very ambitious classmate, wanted to go to DARPA and work on Robotics. I asked if he was thinking it through solely from technical perspective or considering ethics side as well. Clearly, he didn't understand the question and I directly inquired - what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? His response - that's not my…

> what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. If the US wasn't so good at producing killing machines in WW2, you wouldn't be here to complain about DARPA ethics. Instead of having engineers develop the most advanced machines for killing (i.e. protecting the West) such people go into pr…

>This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West

Hell yeah

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#373

Post by [deleted] »

testaburger wrote: post #131
tedd4u wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

CBC news (canadian outlet) released an investigation on this yesterday, and found: > While the facility was functioning as a school, CBC News has confirmed a previous New York Times report stating the building was once part of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) base. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-school-bombing-investigat... Assuming AI was used for finding targets, perhaps the training data was out of…

[deleted]

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#375

Post by tedd4u »

tedd4u wrote: post #298
senectus1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my understanding that it was an Israeli missile that hit that school. i doubt we'll get to know anything about that.

Read the article. NY Times develops several facts that support it being part of a US volley, not Israel.

Reuters now reporting "U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children"

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-investigation-p...

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#376

Post by DANmode »

sodality2 wrote: post #319
the_af wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. And the military in movies used to be depicted as inflexible, stubborn, paranoid, incompetent, and usually either "the bad guys" or authorities that impeded the progress of the main characters. (With exceptions; I'm not forgetting about Top Gun). Then there was a sudden switch, with the military shown with cool gadgets, airplanes, tech, heroics, and generally being glorified. The transition must have ha…

No conspiracy necessary. The CIA bought the rights to the 1954 film Animal Farm, modified the ending to fit propagandist ends, and it went undiscovered for four decades. The original Top Gun was intended to recover the image of the US Navy after the Vietnam War. Etc etc etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment...

So, no conspiracy theory necessary.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#377

Post by queenkjuul »

nostromo wrote: post #310
jrmg wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has one more syllable than ‘warfighter’, which also doesn’t do any of the things you said.

I'm not sure how much more clear warfighter could be. "One who fights wars." Service member is extremely vague. "A member of a service."

Growing up, "the service" was synonymous with "the military" among my grandparents who, y'know, fought in WWII

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#378

Post by dotancohen »

godelski wrote: post #354
komali2 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep making this strange claim about Taiwan, the only liberal democracy in the East without a single American soldier on its soil. Almost like Taiwan is a sovereign nation uninterested in participating in the PRC and USA's fight for global hegemony.

I think the funniest part is the fact that all the western countries are even afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence. It's a much better argument to say Korea or Japan are ruled by the US (and Korea and Japan absolutely hate one another!). Does the US have influence in Taiwan? Certainly! But if that meant Taiwan was the US's puppet then Taiwan would simultaneously be China's puppet. Schrödinger's Vassal

  > afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence.
Does Taiwan claim independence?

I thought that both the government in Beijing and the government in Taipei both claim that all of China is united, and that they are the legitimate government of that united entity.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#380

Post by jadar »

godelski wrote: post #337
jadar wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The idea of teaching some sort of “secular” ethics has never made sense to me … An intro ethics class won't shy away from religion, it comes up a lot. You'll most likely even discuss differences in different sects of Christianity. You should also have the discussion of if morals are universal (and if so, which ones) or are all made up. Secular just means you discuss more than one viewpoint. The idea of teaching mor…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN