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

51–60 of 114 posts

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

#51

Post by yunwal »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #46
haswell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Never” is definitely an exaggeration

https://djmag.com/news/sxsw-cuts-ties-us-army-and-weapons-ma...

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

#52

Post by largbae »

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…

HN has a multinational audience, but for those in the US, do you really want our best and brightest to shun defense while other nations' best and brightest double down?

If so, what is the outcome that you would like to see from that policy?

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

#53

Post by marricks »

largbae wrote: post #52
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…

HN has a multinational audience, but for those in the US, do you really want our best and brightest to shun defense while other nations' best and brightest double down? If so, what is the outcome that you would like to see from that policy?

That’s because it’s not actually defense it’s offense and since we’re the worlds sole super power it’s extremely coercive offense.

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

#55

Post by insane_dreamer »

I don't like it but I can sympathize with Meta that they have no choice.

They can't prevent other militaries (i.e., China) from using it (even if their TOS says so) so the only military they are handicapping is their own (and perhaps some EU countries).

The US military will just use OpenAI or Claude instead of Meta if they disallow them.

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

#57

Post by jpk »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #34
_carbyau_ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a browser plugin that: 1. clicks the link 2. reads the article 3. rewrites the link title in less clickbaity terms? It seems possible.

Feels like a good idea for Kagi to incorporate

They kind of already do this. There's a "Summarize page" item in the hamburger dots next to each search result that appears to send an LLM off to read the page, and fill out an element under the search result with a summary. So, more about the content than the title, but I think that's even better.

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

#58

Post by croes »

squigz wrote: post #22
crooked-v wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, more pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be all that "hard" to recreate current LLM state of the art from scratch now that the techniques are known. It's just really expensive in terms of hardware.

Which is a non-issue for the US military. Not a TOS, nor cost, nor technical expertise is going to stop this sort of technology from being applied to armed forces. If anyone's upset at Meta for this, they're getting angry at the wrong people...

The old “If we don’t do it someone else will” excuse.

By that logic you could excuse also drug dealing and sex trafficking.

There is a difference between don’t having a chance to prevent the use and making it easy.

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

#59

Post by speakfreely »

marricks wrote: post #53
largbae wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has a multinational audience, but for those in the US, do you really want our best and brightest to shun defense while other nations' best and brightest double down? If so, what is the outcome that you would like to see from that policy?

That’s because it’s not actually defense it’s offense and since we’re the worlds sole super power it’s extremely coercive offense.

Your perspective is about 15-20 years out of date, maybe valid in the 1990s or early 2000s. The US is extremely vulnerable both economically and militarily to the "New Axis" (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea). China alone could easily out-manufacture its way to a victory in a conventional war with the US. The US, for all its faults, was a stabilizing force that permitted free markets to flourish in a unipolar world. It is quickly becoming a multipolar world where nationalist industrial policy will decide the future winners. Whatever your thoughts on US policy, I guarantee you'll enjoy China's or Russia's even less.

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

#60

Post by croes »

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…

Nice try. Unless the military uses potato guns, potatoes aren’t directly involved in killing decisions.

AI is. At first at target selection. Just don’t hope that humans will check the results.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42017085

Post reply on HN