[dead]
Where things stand with the Department of War
551–560 of 862 posts
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's all straight up conspiracy practice since long, to much cheerful bleating how it isn't.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#553It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and 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. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…
Ever since I was young I was fairly divided on the subject. I've dealt with some highschool students affected by the downed aircraft MH17 and that lead to lots of grief among students. It usually lead to strong anti-war sentiments but some also felt a need to "do" something with it.
If no one works on defence systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized, perhaps not this week but in 5 years. Therefore I can reconcile the idea of working for defence related r&d. I also know that these sentiments are used by unscrupulous individuals to gain influence, but I don't feel like we should let that cause a divide between people with a strong moral compass and those without, since we'd be worse off if there was no one in a position of power to make moral decisions. That requires people to judge work based on it's content instead of the domain. It also requires workforce to have enough collective pressure to stall immoral defence (or rather attack) systems.
Automated decisionmaking tools throw a wrench into this because it brings us steps closer to mass deployment of questionable and potentially unhinged munitions. If laws mandated human-in-the-loop systems it would be a better outcome.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Yeah but this itself doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, e.g. DARPA sponsored half of the nice things we're using every day.
"DARPA sponsored half of the nice things we're using every day"
That's a very bold claim. (And I am aware of the history of the Internet)
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#555Earlier 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. I guess let the record state that I am deeply morally opposed to automated killing of any kind. I am sick to my stomach when I really try to put myself in the shoes of the indigenous pe…
The Gatling Gun was first deployed in the US civil war, not in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun The “machine gun” has a more complicated history, and the first practical example may have been Gatling’s, or an earlier example used in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
Forgive me I got the detail wrong. If your point was to deny that my imagined scenario never happened, read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to…
I don't get the point. What does objectivity have to do with the value of x? Your example seems to validate my point of view: warmongers disguise their subjectivity by basing their actions on “objective” models.
>What does objectivity have to do with the value of x?
It does not have anything to do with objectivity. I thought it to be futile to discuss that since, as you implied, predicting future can't be 100% objective, and thus decisions to avert a bad future outcome always need to be based on subjective decisions.
So this is another question where I want to ask you how you would make a subjective call.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
> afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence No one is afraid. Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China.
> No one is afraid. You seem to have trouble reading. Here's a map that shows countries that recognize Taiwan's independence[0]. That's a lot of gray... > Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China. You seem very confused... but I get it, it is confusing Mainland China's current government is called the "People's Republic of China" (PRC)[1] Taiwan calls itself th…
The Taiwanese government still officially considers itself the government of all of China, not just of Taiwan and a few outlying islands.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inability to accurately cite any story about this, and the "friend of a friend" structure is what implies it's garbage. Not to mention it itself requires a conspiracy theory: "no one would do this work voluntarily" (or "all the smart people have to be tricked because they're so smart they obviously agree with me"). As though people don't just go and work at Boeing or Lockheed Martin.
> "no one would do this work voluntarily" The much more common reason is compartmentalisation. Employees are told as much as they need to know, no more. If someone can design a glide bomb without knowing that it has an explosive payload, then they're not told. The fear is not so much the employees themselves (they might be quite patriotic!) but that the information will leak out to the enemy, giving them a chance to…
That's a very different proposition to what the various parent posters are implying though. Like if you work for a defense contractor, you know what your work is for even if you wouldn't know exactly what the product or application was.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#559Under Secretary of War Emil Michael: I want to end all speculation: there is no active DeptofWar negotiation with AnthropicAI
https://x.com/uswremichael/status/2029754965778907493?s=46&t...
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Please lets also not forget computer games. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, oh what a glorious thing to be an american soldier...
America's Army would like to have a word