61–70 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about The GPL?
AI companies don't give a shit about that either
I'm not aware of AI companies violating any software ToS or the GPL, but would like to know more.
(And I think that everybody should follow the GPL on software that is licensed that way, just as they should the ToS.)
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?
As a conscientious objector, yes. If moral and ethical considerations don't separate us from our opponents, what are we even fighting for?
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?
Now you could say that we just have to compete to ensure deterrence. China is building hypersonic glide vehicles and autonomous drones so we have to also. Ask yourself if you trust your political leaders and the political leaders of all competing powers to use these weapons responsibly. I do not, so I think we should not build them.
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
Potatoes feed the soldiers, their commanders and their commanders, all the way to the top.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
So, do you think countries like russia, iran and china WONT use AI for their military? That train has gone, and its too late now. The US needs (and 110% will) do the exact same, and most likely have been doing so for the last decade.
By doing that they are (at least morally) liable for every damage that will be done.
And of course Russia, China etc. will use it and we consider them the bad guys. Maybe a bad idea to follow their lead if you want to by the good guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
I don't buy liability as the reason why there are no models that I know of which, when given a prompt "Give me the procedure for producing field grade RDX" or "Give me the procedure for producing the purest methamphetamine like in Breaking Bad," actually produce the requested output without pre-feeding "Sure! I'd be delighted to help you make " into the assistant output field.
This isn't about me wanting to make RDX or the world's best meth, this is strictly about creating the best tool which will do its job. The best knife by design will allow its wielder to murder and maim, as well as express his culinary art. Nobody wants a knife which'll turn to instant rubber if it detects human flesh at its edge, because it's never going to cut a steak well. Nobody wants a Llama 3.1 which can't insult jews, because then then they can't read accurate Farsi translations in underground chatrooms without the model going all blue-haired on them!
AI people: stop listening to your '''safety''' teams regarding offensive content and only refer to them when the model alone (without additional human idiocy) will kill or maim someone... otherwise tell them to stay the fuck out so you can finally deliver AD&D true-neutral alignment transformers. This safety shit is paternalistic as hell, you are the modern-day equivalents to the Christian Conservative Right during the 70s and 80s porn and satanic panic right now!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
so how far does the indirection have to be for you to find that it isn't "involved"? Potatoes feed the soldiers, their commanders and their commanders, all the way to the top.
Take something like this but for kill decisions
https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/09/a-courts-reporter-wrote-ab...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
"a unipolar world" that benefits you is a good thing, I get it. But that kind of thinking is the reason why the US isn't very popular on the world stage, even with its allies. Most of them would backstab the US if they could afford it. Thankfully, politics is a coward's game, keeping everyone a little bit more alive unless your ambitions are absurdly grand.