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

81–90 of 114 posts

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

#81

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Gud wrote: post #70
rf15 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting, not because it is(was?) #1 as you are suggesting.

> US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting

Versus China (annexed Tibet), Russia (annexing Ukraine) and Iran (banana republics across the Middle East)?

People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies.

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

#82

Post by tucnak »

bglazer wrote: post #63
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?

I would prefer that the United States scale back military spending while negotiating arms controls agreements with our major adversaries. Arms races are mutually destructive. They distort the economies and political incentives of all countries involved. They create a self sustaining loop of increasing capabilities and perceived threat from both sides, which sucks the political focus and productive capability into a b…

And yet some of the coolest tech, most powerful machines, and processes came up during the Cold War.

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

#83

Post by dns_snek »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81
Gud wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting, not because it is(was?) #1 as you are suggesting.

> US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting Versus China (annexed Tibet), Russia (annexing Ukraine) and Iran (banana republics across the Middle East)? People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies.

> People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies.

I suspect that's just your rationalization to make it easy to dismiss people who have a real problem with the status quo.

I don't know a single adult who likes to see themselves as edgy just for the sake of it, but I do know many adults who hold deep disagreements with the status quo and who're not afraid to express it.

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

#84

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dns_snek wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting Versus China (annexed Tibet), Russia (annexing Ukraine) and Iran (banana republics across the Middle East)? People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies.

> People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies. I suspect that's just your rationalization to make it easy to dismiss people who have a real problem with the status quo. I don't know a single adult who likes to see themselves as edgy just for the sake of it, but I do know many adults who hold deep disagreements with the status quo and who…

> that's just your rationalization to make it easy to dismiss people who have a real problem with the status quo

No, someone saying they don't like the status quo make sense. Global politics are anarchic. It's obviously better to be on the winning side. Where I get credulous is when someone claims their preferred actor, especially if an autocrat, would be superior for disinterested parties.

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

#85

Post by nielsbot »

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?

If it's just "defense", then what's the problem? But it's not defense, is it? It's for policing the world... I think we should do less of that.

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

#88

Post by NicuCalcea »

bglazer wrote: post #63
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?

I would prefer that the United States scale back military spending while negotiating arms controls agreements with our major adversaries. Arms races are mutually destructive. They distort the economies and political incentives of all countries involved. They create a self sustaining loop of increasing capabilities and perceived threat from both sides, which sucks the political focus and productive capability into a b…

The US has virtually no involvement in my home country, yet that hasn't prevented one of their historical adversaries from constantly attaching and threatening us. My country is on course to developing closer ties with NATO and the West for that very reason.

Of course, I would also prefer it if everyone scaled back military spending, it's an easy thing to wish for when it takes so many parties to actually do it. But failing that, I would rather have the West outspend and outsmart their adversaries.

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

#89

Post by im3w1l »

paxys wrote: post #8

Everyone wants "open" software without realizing what that entails. Yes the US military can use it, as can China and Iran and North Korea. You think any of them gives a shit about Meta's ToS?

Cloud hosted models have algorithms and people that are actively working to prevent China, Iran and North Korea from using them for military purposes. So this move does actually mean something.

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

#90

Post by jowea »

epistasis wrote: post #61
blibble wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies don't give a shit about that either

In this thread we are talking about the US military, China, North Korea, etc. using the models, and whether anyone should give a shit about ToS. 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's been a big controversy over training AI on copyleft code hosted on places like GitHub and generating code which could be interpreted as a derivative work.
Post reply on HN