61–70 of 411 posts
""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m…
[flagged]
Funny how timely this is, with Karpathy's Autoresearch hitting the top of HN yesterday (and this being an indication that frontier labs probably have much larger scale versions of this)
""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m…
[flagged]
since when did the view that "humans should be in the loop before murderbots target and kill someone" become a "naive moral absolutist view of the world"? we're resigned to building the terminator now?
He is the most terrible ceo among all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 100% understand and agree the AI community argument around lethal autonomy. But I am trying to understand this from the perspective of defence & govt. Why is it so business as usual for them? Do they consider this at par with missiles with infra-red/heat sensors for tracking/locking? Where does the definition of lethal autonomy begin and end? Just putting this out there as a point to ponder on. By itself, this may…
I don't think it's about lethal autonomy specifically as much as it's just about government autonomy period. They don’t think private companies should have any veto power over how the government uses some technology they're provided. On its face that’s not a crazy stance: Governments are meant to represent the public, while private companies obviously aren't. I think it’s somewhat understandable why the government mi…
Maybe the argument is that they should, but I don't agree with that. If Anthropic or any of these other vendors have reservations about the logical conclusion of how these tools will be/are used then they should not sell to the government. Simple as. However ... if the claims Anthropic et al make about how these systems will develop and the capabilities they will have are at all true, then the government will come knocking anyway.
""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m…
> This was about principle, not people. Why do I not believe this at all? Were things truly sunshine and roses at OpenAI up until this Pentagon debacle? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed like the writing was on the wall years ago. > I have deep respect for Sam and the team I have even more questions now.
Not to mention that the principles are not being betrayed now for the first time.
""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m…
> This was about principle, not people. Why do I not believe this at all? Were things truly sunshine and roses at OpenAI up until this Pentagon debacle? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed like the writing was on the wall years ago. > I have deep respect for Sam and the team I have even more questions now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 100% understand and agree the AI community argument around lethal autonomy. But I am trying to understand this from the perspective of defence & govt. Why is it so business as usual for them? Do they consider this at par with missiles with infra-red/heat sensors for tracking/locking? Where does the definition of lethal autonomy begin and end? Just putting this out there as a point to ponder on. By itself, this may…
My most straightforward read is that the military simply doesn't want their contractors to have a say in the war doctrine. Raytheon doesn't get to say "you can only bomb the countries we like, and no hitting hospitals or schools". It doesn't necessarily mean the Pentagon wants to bomb hospitals, but they also don't want to lose autonomy. A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia…
What's the reason this is less charitable, exactly? Do we think this isn't true, or that we think it's immoral to build the Terminator even if China/Russia already have them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like everyone forgot about this https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-al...
Employees are the ones with the real power to make this hurt. The customers switching over are easily offset by the DoD contract. But losing talent over this, and having a harder time to attract future talent? That could hurt them Sam probably expects to solve this by just offering more money. It worked in the past
Maybe my sarcasm is not justified, but I don't think most people care that that work for a company that does unethical things. In fact I think all large companies are more or less immoral (or rather amoral) - that's just how the system is built.