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

Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#41

Post by squigz »

haswell wrote: post #36
squigz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why I should be mad at Meta and not the armed forces that adopt this technology inappropriately.

Why not both? There are a myriad of reasons to be concerned about the military adopting this kind of tech. If it's reasonable to be upset at the military, it seems equally reasonable to be upset at entities that enable the military. I don't think it's a matter of "should", but rather, if you're upset at one, it doesn't make much sense not to be upset at the other.

Because getting mad at one is more appropriate and getting mad at the other would be pointless. Militaries will adopt this technology, whether Meta or the big names allow it in the TOS or not.

I also don't get angry at gun manufacturers for the ways their guns are used; I do however get mad at legislators and citizens who enable easier access to guns and promote gun culture.

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#42

Post by DrillShopper »

jmward01 wrote: post #9

There is a difference between allowing use and supporting a use case. Supporting would be, for example, adding military specific training to the model. If we were talking about a car or a tractor nobody would bat an eye. Should companies not sell potatoes to the military? To be clear, I am not a fan of developing for the military, but the idea that a TOS will stop AI being weaponized is a bit naive. Similarly, if the…

[flagged]

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#43

Post by eli »

Tier3r wrote: post #39
jmward01 wrote: post #9

There is a difference between allowing use and supporting a use case. Supporting would be, for example, adding military specific training to the model. If we were talking about a car or a tractor nobody would bat an eye. Should companies not sell potatoes to the military? To be clear, I am not a fan of developing for the military, but the idea that a TOS will stop AI being weaponized is a bit naive. Similarly, if the…

That is false equivalence, there's a class of things that should rightfully be discouraged from military use (chemical/biological weapons, land mines, phosphorous weapons) because of the significant harm/side effects they cause beyond some definition of acceptable.

Aren't your examples all things that are solely of interest or use to the military?

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#45

Post by paxys »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #3

Can a company prevent the government from using its technology? I thought the government could already seize/utilize/reverse engineer anything they so deemed fit.

Why does the US military spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on equipment and services from private contractors when it could just seize all of it for free?

Everything has a price, whether for you and me or the government. There's a reason war has consistently ranked among the most lucrative businesses in human history.

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#46

Post by dumpsterdiver »

haswell wrote: post #36
squigz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why I should be mad at Meta and not the armed forces that adopt this technology inappropriately.

Why not both? There are a myriad of reasons to be concerned about the military adopting this kind of tech. If it's reasonable to be upset at the military, it seems equally reasonable to be upset at entities that enable the military. I don't think it's a matter of "should", but rather, if you're upset at one, it doesn't make much sense not to be upset at the other.

Who should be upset? And about what specifically? U.S. companies supporting the U.S. military has never been a point of contention afaik.

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#48

Post by fragmede »

Tier3r wrote: post #39
jmward01 wrote: post #9

There is a difference between allowing use and supporting a use case. Supporting would be, for example, adding military specific training to the model. If we were talking about a car or a tractor nobody would bat an eye. Should companies not sell potatoes to the military? To be clear, I am not a fan of developing for the military, but the idea that a TOS will stop AI being weaponized is a bit naive. Similarly, if the…

That is false equivalence, there's a class of things that should rightfully be discouraged from military use (chemical/biological weapons, land mines, phosphorous weapons) because of the significant harm/side effects they cause beyond some definition of acceptable.

Relatedly, when I ask Llama how to make red phosphorus it tells me off. What's the military going to do with an AI that refuses to help write plans on how to invade a country or kill an enemy. Then again, maybe its military masters are better at threatening it than I and can jailbreak it more easily.

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#49

Post by Jerrrrrrry »

eli wrote: post #43
Tier3r wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is false equivalence, there's a class of things that should rightfully be discouraged from military use (chemical/biological weapons, land mines, phosphorous weapons) because of the significant harm/side effects they cause beyond some definition of acceptable.

Aren't your examples all things that are solely of interest or use to the military?

[flagged]

Re: Meta Permits Its A.I. Models to Be Used for U.S. Military Purposes

#50

Post by gsk22 »

yumraj wrote: post #35
jasonlotito wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major AI company has changed its policy regarding military use of AI. The only way that isn’t newsworthy is if you think none of that is important: AI, the military, Facebook’s AI efforts, or its policies regarding all three. That is what is newsworthy. Why do you think none of that matters?

Isn’t it obvious that militaries, all over the world, will be using AI, now or later. So, this is US military using AI from a US headquartered company.

Just because something is obvious or inevitable doesn't preclude it from being newsworthy.

It almost makes it more newsworthy: "look, it finally happened!"

Post reply on HN