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

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#691

Post by preisschild »

sithamet wrote: post #686
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying, nor people from any nation that came to help. That's as Anthropic as it gets if your nerve expands a little bit further than your HOA.

The more likely scenario will be "your people" dying in a war against machines that don't tend to disregard illegal orders.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#692

Post by gambiting »

sithamet wrote: post #686
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying, nor people from any nation that came to help. That's as Anthropic as it gets if your nerve expands a little bit further than your HOA.

>> I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying

What makes you think in any war the machines would stop at just fighting other machines?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#693

Post by pell »

michaelsshaw wrote: post #676
phgn wrote: post #643

> I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries. Was this written by the state department? How can you think that a “department of war” does anything remotely good? And only object to domestic AI surveillance?

The entire article is very American-brained.

The emphasis of "domestic" surveillance is definitely concerning.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#694

Post by pell »

mhjkl wrote: post #382
oxqbldpxo wrote: post #256

It may sound crazy, but they should just move the company to Europe or Canada, instead of putting up with this.

Because as we all know the EU would never try using AI for mass surveillance /s

So far, the EU's track record on privacy is definitely a lot better though. Not saying it'd always stay that way of course.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#695

Post by RGamma »

827a wrote: post #556
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

If the United States is ever, in the future, at war with an adversary using truly autonomous and functional killing machines; you may find yourself praying that we have our own rather than praying human nature changes. Of course, we must strive for this to never happen; but carrying a huge stick seems to be the most effective way to reduce human death and suffering from armed conflict.

Given how unstable and aggressive the US government is at the moment others having these weapons seems to be a good idea for balance. Not sure you are aware of the damage Trump is inflicting on international relations.

But personally I wouldn't like to die because some crackpot with the right connections can will rest-of-world to that fate, no matter their affiliation. This escalation of destructive power and the carelessness with which it is justified pretty disheartening to see. Good times create bad people?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#696

Post by piokoch »

This is comical.

"Mass domestic surveillance. We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values"

Translating to human language: mass surveillance in USA "is incompatible with democratic values" but if we do that against, say, Germany or France this is OK. Ah, and if we use AI for "counterintelligence missions", for instance against this is also OK, even if this happens in USA.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#698

Post by rustyhancock »

piokoch wrote: post #696

This is comical. "Mass domestic surveillance. We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values" Translating to human language: mass surveillance in USA "is incompatible with democratic values" but if we do that against, say, Germany or France this is OK. Ah, and if we use AI for "cou…

Perhaps Anthropic thinks it can provide a local model that classifies surveillance targets as red blooded Americans.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#699

Post by pjc50 »

themacguffinman wrote: post #490
nmfisher wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a complete outsider, I genuinely believe that Dario et al are well-intentioned. But I also believe they are a terrible combination of arrogant and naive - loudly beating the drum that they created an unstoppable superintelligence that could destroy the world, and thinking that they are the only ones who can control it. I mean if you sign a contract with the Department of War, what on Earth did you think was going…

Not this, because this is completely unprecedented? In fact, the Pentagon already signed an Anthropic contract with safe terms 6 months ago, that initial negotiation was when Anthropic would have made a decision to part ways. It was totally absurd for the govt to turn around and threaten to change the deal, just a ridiculous and unprecedented level of incompetence.

> was totally absurd for the govt to turn around and threaten to change the deal, just a ridiculous and unprecedented level of incompetence.

I think in this case it's safe to assume malice rather than incompetence. It's a lot like the parable of the frog and the scorpion.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#700

Post by whstl »

lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

> Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are

After 20 years of everyone in this industry saying "we want to make the world a better place" and doing the opposite, the problem here is not really related to people's "understanding".

And before the default answer kicks in: this is not cynicism. Plenty of folks here on HN and elsewhere legitimately believe that it's possible to do good with tech. But a billion dollar behemoth with great PR isn't that.

Post reply on HN