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

381–390 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#381

Post by meroes »

the_af wrote: post #315
hax0ron3 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

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…

Just rewatched Buffalo Soldiers with Joaquin Phoenix. Really don't think that movie could be made today.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#383

Post by dotancohen »

jmward01 wrote: post #144
randerson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk. Obviously anyone who has used LLMs know they are not on par with humans. There also needs to be an accountability framework for when software makes the wrong decision. Who gets fi…

War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral. The only best choice is to fight at every turn making war easy. Our adversaries will, or likely already have, gone the autonomous route. We should be doing everything we can to put major blockers on this similar to efforts to block chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The logical end of autonomous targeting and weapons is near instant mass killing dec…

  > War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral.
This is the right answer. When war becomes inevitable, we are forced to choose between morality and survival. I pass no judgement on those who choose survival.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#384

Post by milemi »

atmavatar wrote: post #188
gcanyon wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why do you wear that toy on your head?" "Because if I wear it anywhere else it chafes" "A laser is a beam of coherent light." "Does that mean it talks?" "Your stutter has improved." "I've been giving myself shock treatment." "Up the voltage." "In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'" "Is there anything I can do for you? Or...more to the point... to you?" "Can you drive a six-inch spike through a…

I think my favorite exchange was the following: Professor Hathaway: "I want to start seeing more of you around in the lab." Chris Knight: "Fine. I'll gain weight."

Do you run?

Only when I’m being chased.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#386

Post by systoll »

abustamam wrote: post #229
WatchDog wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After hearing Palmer Luckey's argument for the name change[0], I tend to think it's good change. Some of his arguments: It used to be called the department of war, and it had a better track record with regard to foreign conflict, under that name then it did under the DoD name. Department of war is a more honest name, department of defense is a somewhat newspeak term, although "Department of Peace" would be worse. It'…

> It's harder to seek funding for "war" I'm confused. This seems like a bad change. Regarding Luckey's other statements, I can almost assure you that the administration did not think as much about it as Luckey has. Insecure Pete just thought the title "Secretary of Defense" was too wussy so he wanted to be Secretary of War. Also, I think people mainly have issue with the fact that Trump is just randomly and unilatera…

> I'm confused. This seems like a bad change.

It’s a good change in that it discourages unwarranted funding. Bad for the DoD’s budget, good for the country.

It’s analogous to why `React.__SECRET_INTERNALS_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED` is a pretty good name.

(But even if it's a decent name in isolation, it isn't actually the name of the department, and using it is a tacit submission to the power of the executive over congress. So… bad overall.)

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#387

Post by dotancohen »

paulhebert wrote: post #362
qsera wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>refuse to let their systems be used for war.. I don't want wars. But tell me, what would you like your country to do when conflicts arise due to want of natural resources? Would you want your country to just give up that resource your people depend on, like may be 50/50? Do you believe it will always be possible to settle on a solution in a peaceful way that works for everyone?

Most of America's recent wars have been unjustified. I think it's very reasonable to not want your products or work going towards making it easier for the US military wage unjustified wars. I also think it would be reasonable to change your stance on that if America entered a war that you felt was justified. (For example, I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.) Saying…

  > I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.
Enlisting after your country had already been invaded is too late. An ancient proverb reminds us that if you want peace, prepare for war.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#388

Post by mckn1ght »

pbh101 wrote: post #342
mckn1ght wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need religion for ethics or worldview. How about: we all appear here on this rock, none of us know why, we’re all in it together, we all struggle, none of us know if we’re alone in this universe or what the universe really is. This unifies us all and puts us on an even playing field. We should be compassionate to one another as we all come from the same circumstance. We can create a concept of god to explai…

This exhibits the borrowing GP mentions: your ‘should’ does not necessarily follow from the stated priors. Why is compassion morally mandated by the priors and not competition, for example?

It’s at least an option for consideration. I shouldn’t have spoken normatively.

Is your position that compassion is only possible via religion?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#389

Post by etchalon »

zarzavat wrote: post #238
randerson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk. Obviously anyone who has used LLMs know they are not on par with humans. There also needs to be an accountability framework for when software makes the wrong decision. Who gets fi…

This is exactly how all other weapons of mass destruction were rationalised. "If we develop we can save so many lives of our soldiers". It always ends up being used to murder civilians.

Literally the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#390

Post by lukan »

bobbiechen wrote: post #82
ryandrake wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. (spoiler alert) Wasn't this one of the plot points of the Val Kilmer movie Real Genius ? They had to trick the students into creating a weapon by siloing them off from each other and having them build individual but related components? How far…

>I’m going to tell you about how I took a job building software to kill people. >But don’t get distracted by that; I didn’t know at the time. Caleb Hearth: "Don't Get Distracted" https://calebhearth.com/dont-get-distracted

But he did know he was going to work for the military.

"I’d be joining a contracting company for the Department of Defense."

(But interesting article otherwise)

Post reply on HN