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

'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#91

Post by legitster »

croes wrote: post #22
legitster wrote: post #10

Palantir's entire business model is taking on customers/projects that the rest of Silicon Valley refuses to. Not only is there an "underserved" audience, they get to charge a premium and for worse products. The irony is that this is a good reminder of the harsh realities that Oppenheimer himself clearly grappled with - if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will .

>if you refuse to build it, someone with less scruples will. Pretty lame excuse. If I don't sell drugs, some else will. If you're doing it, you are already the one with less scruples. Do you think the victims care about the scruples of the perpetrator?

That's not the point I was trying to make. If anything, it's the opposite. We need moralistic people to take on amoral/uncomfortable problems.

If you refuse to deal with drug addiction, you shouldn't be surprised when drug dealers do.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#92

Post by AnimalMuppet »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #56
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see it as saying that the peace activists are on a path that will not actually lead to peace, but rather to war, and those preparing for war are on a path that will actually lead to peace. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.

This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.

I accept that, even if I don't want war, war may still be done to me.

I do not accept that just rolling over and being conquered is better than fighting a war.

Countries attack other countries. "Legitimacy" has nothing to do about it. The question is, what are you going to do when you're on the receiving end?

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#93

Post by camkego »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
pdimitar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.

> We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered Do you have a historical example?

You’ll have to form your own conclusions, but the history of the Māori tribes is often presented as an example of this. Their history is often presented as an example of pacifists vs aggressors.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#95

Post by unclebucknasty »

itsanaccount wrote: post #80
unclebucknasty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe this deep state? Is it in the room with us now?

As dismissive as I am of the last presidents constant prodding of a "deep state" conspiracy, is it really any question that such a group exists? And in case rhetorical questions are lost on this site, the answer is no, and its not appropriate to mock. Practically we know working in companies "leadership" only has a vague capability to steer the sheep, and that control becomes more and more vague every day. It seems t…

>is it really any question that such a group exists?

Yes, there are many questions.

Cultures emerge in any organization, and the U.S. government is known to be bureaucratic. But, acknowledging this is a far cry from sowing blanket distrust via facile allusions to some vague, vast, unseemly conspiracy that has still not been defined.

These charges side-step important questions, such as: who specifically are these people? How are they organized and who leads them? What are they actually doing? What are their objectives? And, most importantly, are their supposed aims and activities in contravention with stated U.S. interests? For instance, are they aiding adversaries, like Russia, to the detriment of U.S. policy/security?

It's reckless and irresponsible to lob these vague conspiratorial charges: "Systems! Control becomes more vague! Zeitgeist! Culture!".

Point to something tangible or it's all dangerous FUD and nonsense.

OTOH, the former president who manufactured the charges you're repeating, does so in an effort to undermine the U.S. government and justify supplanting it with a regime of his own making. And, that proposed regime's stated goals do directly contravene U.S. policy and democratic principles. The would-be regime is openly declaring that they'll replace the entire bureaucracy with loyalists, use the DOJ to prosecute opponents, etc.

And instead of being concerned about that, you have people mindlessly repeating, "Destroy the deep state!".

>its not appropriate to mock.

Needless to say, I disagree. It's as appropriate to mock as Flat Earth theory and anything else as equally non-substantive.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#96

Post by lukeschlather »

RACEWAR wrote: post #74
lukeschlather wrote: post #59

The quote in the title is totally out-of-context. It's not entirely clear but from context it sounds like Mark Milley was just laughing because he realized that he's the "new Oppenheimer" as the current director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos.

Not to nitpick, but to engage. Can the quote be taken “entirely out of context” if the context itself isn’t “entirely clear”? Or does your interpretation of the quote and its meaning differ from the author’s?

The way the quote is used in the title of the article implies that someone involved with Palentir is referring to their AI as a weapon of mass destruction on par with the atom bomb, but when the quote appears in the article it clearly has nothing to do with AI, nor is the speaker comparing himself to Oppenheimer's role in creating the first atom bomb, he's just noting that he is occupying the exact same job as Oppenheimer.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#97

Post by racional »

subjectsigma wrote: post #63
wolverine876 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really looking for problems. The Palantir CEO said things much more extreme: As the moderator asked general questions about the panelists’ views on the future of war, Schmidt and Cohen answered cautiously. But Karp, who’s known as a provocateur, aggressively condoned violence, often peering into the audience with hungry eyes, palpably desperate for claps, boos or shock. He began by saying that the US has to “s…

Whoa, hold up for a second. > He began by saying that the US has to “scare our adversaries to death” in war. Referring to Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, he said: “If what happened to them happened to us, there’d be a hole in the ground somewhere. You cited this as an example of an extreme opinion, but this is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War. We don’t want to go to wa…

This is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War.

Except it's not "standard MAD". In fact MAD doesn't apply at all to the Oct 7 attack (which was evil and awful and all that -- but objectively not at scale sufficient to trigger a MAD response).

Instead he's calling for an unhinged, completely disproportionate response (nukes). That's simply not what MAD is or how it's supposed to work. In any case it's objectively not (contrary to what he claims) how the U.S. responds to such situations.

It's just bluster, meant to push people's buttons. And he's doing to push his product, basically (yes in part for ideological reasons -- but at the end of the day, as a sales tactic).

Enemies won’t attack us if they think they can’t accomplish their goals by doing so

What you're referring to is general deterrence strategy. That's not what MAD is. It has a very specific meaning and you're getting it completely wrong.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#98

Post by subjectsigma »

racional wrote: post #97
subjectsigma wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa, hold up for a second. > He began by saying that the US has to “scare our adversaries to death” in war. Referring to Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, he said: “If what happened to them happened to us, there’d be a hole in the ground somewhere. You cited this as an example of an extreme opinion, but this is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War. We don’t want to go to wa…

This is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War. Except it's not "standard MAD". In fact MAD doesn't apply at all to the Oct 7 attack (which was evil and awful and all that -- but objectively not at scale sufficient to trigger a MAD response). Instead he's calling for an unhinged, completely disproportionate response (nukes). That's simply not what MAD is or how it's supposed to…

[flagged]

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #86
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> War is real This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)

It's easy to mock when it's caricaturized. And, so is the ”War is peace" position when taken to the extremes by perma-hawks, who've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved with an explosion. As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength. But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a…

War in self-defense is perfectly legitimate. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to fight back.

Note well: I am not saying that all claims of "we're fighting in self-defense" are legitimate.

Re: 'I'm the new Oppenheimer ': Palantir's first-ever AI warfare conference

#100

Post by psychlops »

indigo0086 wrote: post #87
psychlops wrote: post #58

So liability for collateral damage will move from the military to a corporate AI. A bug in a program to be fixed. The reach of war (already not needing approval of the people) will be cheaper and less accountable.

Ai has no more agency, will, or intent as the software warmongers currently use now. The problem is any collateral damage or mistakes will be defended zealously and resolved within the military organization in the same ways it is now

I wasn't implying AI agency and believe that AI is simply a marketing term. I'm suggesting they will shift the liability. In much the same way that "autonomous" cars crashes are no longer the fault of the owner and more of a corporate issue.

But you are more correct. There is no need to shift liability when there is absolutely no recourse for military mistakes.

Post reply on HN