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

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by valval »

croes wrote: post #66
phplovesong wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then they should do it by themselves at least don’t give them the permission. 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.

They’re not morally liable any more than the inventors of Kevlar or thermal imaging or the GPS. All technology that is useful for war will be used for war.

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

#72

Post by victorbjorklund »

croes wrote: post #69
chii wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As soon as the potato could make you think someone is a killing target. Take something like this but for kill decisions https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/09/a-courts-reporter-wrote-ab...

So you think it is wrong to allow the military to use processors in their computers used in the weapons?

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

#73

Post by jmward01 »

Jerrrrrrry wrote: post #49
eli wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't your examples all things that are solely of interest or use to the military?

[flagged]

Thanks for pointing that out. I think this clearly shows the difference between 'allowing use' and 'supporting a use case' when it comes to bio-tech. Vaccinating a soldier is allowing use, creating a biological weapon is supporting a use case. I wouldn't want to work for a bio weapons manufacturer but working for a vaccine maker would be just fine with me even if my efforts were used by the military.

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

#74

Post by lsy »

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?

This argument justifies any unethical behavior. "Some bogeyman on the other side of the world is (letting computers decide to kill people | manufacturing and using bioweapons | torturing their captives for information), are you really going to let your 'ethics' get in the way of our safety?"

Maybe you don't think there is any line we shouldn't cross, but I'm guessing you do. The fact that other people draw that ethical line in a different place shouldn't be all that surprising. The people you're addressing likely believe that the US can achieve its defense goals without turning over matters of life and death to LLMs or image recognition systems.

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

#75

Post by pempem »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #40
pempem wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its fair to feel like telling a snake to not act like a snake is terrible (aka the military acting like the military). the turtle doesn't have to join it. Thats an option. assuming its inevitability, that even attempting to shame meta is a waste or threatening to cut access to talent or users, means change cant happen

A more appropriate analogy imo would be birds cleaning bugs from large animals such hippos. The birds benefit from the deterring effect of the larger animal.

I will take that adjustment lol.

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

#77

Post by dpig_ »

speakfreely wrote: post #59
marricks wrote: post #53

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.…

> Whatever your thoughts on US policy, I guarantee you'll enjoy China's or Russia's even less.

The global politics rendition of "nobody else would ever love you."

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

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lsy wrote: post #74
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?

This argument justifies any unethical behavior. "Some bogeyman on the other side of the world is (letting computers decide to kill people | manufacturing and using bioweapons | torturing their captives for information), are you really going to let your 'ethics' get in the way of our safety?" Maybe you don't think there is any line we shouldn't cross, but I'm guessing you do. The fact that other people draw that ethic…

> people you're addressing likely believe that the US can achieve its defense goals without turning over matters of life and death to LLMs or image recognition systems

I think this is generous. There are a lot of folks at universities and in Silicon Valley who oppose co-operating with the military in any capacity.

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

#79

Post by impossiblefork »

crooked-v wrote: post #12
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…

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.

No, I don't think it is really expensive in terms of hardware. It's probably only a hundred million dollars for renting computing resources.

The problem rather, is that there are actually some difficulties with training very large LLMs still, and then there's data and data curation; and no one has reproduced something like O-1 (I think I know how O-1 works, but I haven't confirmed it), so I actually think it's knowledge about LLM training that is the difficulty.

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

#80

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #62
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?

For me it's essentially the same concept as conscientious objection. Many countries have mandatory military service. Some of those countries also recognize conscientious objector status while others do not. Do you really want people to shun military service while other nations' citizens serve? As a conscientious objector, yes. If moral and ethical considerations don't separate us from our opponents, what are we even…

> As a conscientious objector, yes. If moral and ethical considerations don't separate us from our opponents, what are we even fighting for

I guess I'm a little sour about conscientious objection to war in general--versus specific conflicts--while comfortably living in and profiting from a society bathed in the peace that the credible threat of violence affords.

The irony of this being that instead of a balanced targeting AI we'll get one mostly built by those who wouldn't consider conscientious objection in any case.

Post reply on HN