[HN Gopher] OpenAI deletes ban on using ChatGPT for "military an...
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI deletes ban on using ChatGPT for "military and warfare"
Author : cdme
Score : 227 points
Date : 2024-01-12 19:27 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theintercept.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theintercept.com)
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Related: https://www.livemint.com/ai/israelhamas-war-how-ai-
| helps-isr... Recent AI use in selecting targets for bombing
| campaigns
|
| > In the interview, Kochavi recalled Israel's 11-day war with
| Hamas in May 2021. He said, "In Operation Guardian of the Walls,
| once this machine was activated, it generated 100 new targets
| every day. To put it in perspective, in the past, we would
| produce 50 targets in Gaza in a year. Now, this machine created
| 100 targets in a single day, with 50 per cent of them being
| attacked."
|
| > In 2021, the IDF launched what it referred to as the world's
| "first AI war". It was the eleven-day offensive on Gaza known as
| "Operation Guardian of the Walls" that reportedly killed 261
| Palestinians and injured 2,200.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean it makes sense right, when you really think about it:
| money.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| You also don't really have a choice but to play ball with the
| national security establishment.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Tell that to Edward Snowden, Lindsay Mills, Julian Assange,
| Chelsea Manning... so many. Some complicated figures in their
| own right, all of whom took principled stands against such
| apparatus, most of whom paid dearly for doing so, many of
| which continue to pay dearly for doing so.
|
| It's possible. It just won't make you rich, which is, I
| suspect, the real problem.
| jakderrida wrote:
| > all of whom took principled stands against such
| apparatus.
|
| Yeah, and look what happened to them.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Principled stances aren't often a path to prosperity.
| They do, however, afford you the luxury of not actively
| contributing to mass murder.
| curtis3389 wrote:
| If Hobby Lobby can be Christian, any business can be
| Buddhist.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Even Buddhist countries can have an aggressive military -
| see Myanmar.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| > Nissim Amon is an Israeli Zen master and meditation
| teacher. He served in the Israeli Defense Forces under
| the Nahal Brigade and fought in the Lebanon War. [...] In
| 2023, during the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
| in response to the 7 October Hamas attack, he published a
| video teaching Israeli troops how to shoot with an
| emphasis on breathing and relaxing while being "cool,
| without compassion or mercy".
|
| ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissim_Amon & translation
| of the original message from Amon:
| https://sites.google.com/view/nissimamontranslation )
| curtis3389 wrote:
| It doesn't matter if you're being hypocritical. It's
| already nonsensical that a corporation can have a
| "sincerely held belief", so you might as well exploit the
| existing corruption and say "we're a sincerely Buddhist
| business and can't help with killing".
| sva_ wrote:
| Makes you wonder what exactly happened behind the scenes for the
| OpenAI board to vote to fire Sam Altman
| EA-3167 wrote:
| It seems pretty clear doesn't it? A choice was implicitly
| offered to the employees, to either stick to "AI Safety"
| (whatever that actually means) or potentially cash in more
| money than they ever dreamed of.
|
| Surprising no one, they picked the money.
| peyton wrote:
| I mean the alternate vision isn't compelling. "AI safety" has
| a nice ring to it, but the idea seemed to be "everyone
| just... hang out until we're satisfied." Plus it was becoming
| a bit of a memetic neoreligous movement which ironically
| defined the apocalypse to be original thought. Not very
| attractive to innovative people.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| I understand where you're coming from, but I suspect the
| same would have been true of the scientists working for the
| Manhattan Project. Technology may well be inevitable, but
| we shouldn't forget that how much care we spend in bringing
| it to fruition can have absolutely staggering consequences.
| I'm also more inclined to believe, in this case, that money
| was the primary issue rather than a sense of challenge.
| There are after all much more free, open-source AI projects
| out there for the purely challenge-minded.
| tgv wrote:
| Their IPO curve showed signs of not being exponential.
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| Who's kidding who? I theorize every major government in the world
| has already been using AI models to help guide political and
| military decisions.
|
| Who doesn't think China has a ten year AI algorithm to takeover
| Taiwan? Israel+US+UK > Middle East.
|
| SkyNet or War Games are likely already happening.
| necroforest wrote:
| > Who doesn't think China has a ten year AI algorithm to
| takeover Taiwan?
|
| anybody who works in either AI or natsec
| paganel wrote:
| AI _kriegsspiele_ won 't help win anyone any big war, they
| didn't help the Germans in WW1 (without the AI part, of
| course), they won't help China, so for the sake of the Chinese
| I hope that they're following the "classical" route when it
| comes to "learning" the art of waging the next big war and not
| following this newest tech fad.
|
| There's also something to be said about how the West's reliance
| on these war games (don't know if AI-powered or not) when
| preparing for the latest Ukrainian counter-offensive has had
| disastrous consequences for the actual Ukrainian soldiers on
| the field, but I don't think that Western military leaders are
| so honest with themselves anymore in order to acknowledge that
| (at least between themselves, if not to the public). A hint
| related to those Western war games in this Economist piece [1]
| from September 2023:
|
| > Allied debates over strategy are hardly unusual. American and
| British officials worked closely with Ukraine in the months
| before it launched its counter-offensive in June. They gave
| intelligence and advice, conducted detailed war games to
| simulate how different attacks might play out, and helped
| design and train the brigades that received the lion's share of
| Western equipment
|
| [1] https://archive.is/1u7OK
| matkoniecz wrote:
| > Who doesn't think China has a ten year AI algorithm to
| takeover Taiwan?
|
| What it is supposed to mean?
| edu wrote:
| I guess a veeeeeeery slow progress bar in some screen.
| wait_a_minute wrote:
| If it was Skynet everyone would already know by now...
| badgersnake wrote:
| Makes sense pragmatically. I don't think they could feasibly
| prevent parties with nation state resources from using it in this
| way anyway.
| inopinatus wrote:
| Since the prohibition on weapons development & use remains,
| this reads like normalising contract language to focus on the
| activity rather than the actor.
|
| Both are vague and problematic to enforce, but the latter more
| so.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Unilateral disarmament doesn't really work. You can sit on your
| hands but your adversaries might choose differently and that
| just means you are more likely to loose in case of a conflict.
| So, yes, that was never going to work. OpenAI might choose to
| not serve those customers. But that just creates opportunities
| for other companies to step up and serve those customers.
| Somebody will do it. And the benefit for OpenAI doing this
| themselves is a lot of revenue and not helping competitors
| grow. Doing this on their terms is better than having others do
| it.
|
| I think the sentiments around AI and war are mostly a bit
| naive. Of course AI is going to be weaponized. A lot of people
| think that's amoral, not ethical, etc. And they are right. In
| the wrong hands weapons can do a lot of harm and AI enabled
| weaponry might be really good at that. Of course, the whole
| point of war is actually harming the other side any way you
| can. And usually both sides think they are right and will want
| the best weapons to do that. So, yes, they'll want AI and are
| probably willing to spend lots on getting it.
|
| And if you think about it, a lot of conflicts are actually
| needlessly bloody. AI might actually be more efficient at
| avoiding e.g. collateral damage and bringing conflicts to a
| conclusion sooner rather than later. Or preventing them
| entirely. Sort of the opposite of what we are seeing in Ukraine
| currently.
| smeeth wrote:
| Imagine you are OpenAI. AI is going to be used for "Military and
| Warfare" whether you want it to be or not. Do you:
|
| A) opt-out of participating to absolve yourself of future sins or
|
| B) create the systems yourself, assuring you will have a say in
| the ethical rules engineered into the weapons
|
| If you actually give a shit about ethics and safety (as opposed
| to the appearance thereof) the only logical choice is B.
| resolutebat wrote:
| By the same logic, chemists in the USA should work on nerve
| gas, because if they don't North Korea will?
| daveguy wrote:
| That's not the same logic at all.
|
| OP choice was protest or participate and influence to safer
| outcomes. Your choice was protest or participate without
| influence to safer outcomes.
|
| Also the AI participant would be OpenAI either way, whereas
| your inadequate alternative is participate with the US or NK
| will participate. Also, not the same.
|
| So, wrong on two counts.
| FpUser wrote:
| If said nerve gas was decisive weapon capable of giving one
| side absolute advantage chemists in USA or any other country
| for that matter would absolutely do it.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| This is terrible logic and we (the international community)
| have banned several kinds of terrible weapons to avoid this
| kind of lose-lose escalation logic.
| nradov wrote:
| That is not valid logic. The USA ratified the Chemical
| Weapons Convention in 1997, and there are various Acts of
| Congress which make most work on nerve gas a federal felony.
| There are no such legal prohibitions on AI development.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| We are debating ethics and morality surrounding a rapidly
| evolving field, not regurgitating trivia about the
| arbitrary legal status quo in the country you live in.
| Think for a moment about the various events in human
| history perpetrated by a government which considered those
| actions perfectly legal, then come back with something to
| contribute to the discussion beyond a pathetic, thought-
| terminating appeal to authority.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| 1. The initial "pathetic"thought-terminator was
| comparison to nerve gas.
|
| 2. Nerve gas is not strategic. A better comparison are
| nukes in WW2.
|
| 3. Nerve gas has no other uses unlike AI.
|
| 4. Nerve can only be used to hurt unlike AI
|
| 5. If AI in military is so dangerous, should the US just
| sit and do nothing while China /Russia deploy it fully?
| What is your suggestion here specifically?
| janice1999 wrote:
| > assuring you will have a say
|
| Suppliers don't get to pick which house the missile lands on.
| tdeck wrote:
| "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
| That's not my department" says Werner Von Braun.
| poisonborz wrote:
| If you really know about supplier networks, government,
| military: this is a losing game that is better not played.
| Frummy wrote:
| Imagine you are Microsoft. Two decades ago the state regulated
| you. Now you get the opportunity to have them eat from your
| hand. Who cares about ethics and safety?
| climatekid wrote:
| Reality is AI is going to be used to write _really really boring
| reports_
|
| Not everything is a spy movie
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| AI is also currently used to select bombing targets for several
| years now
|
| It's used for operational efficiency: to select and bomb
| targets faster and in greater numbers than human analysts are
| able to
|
| Not everything is boring paperwork
|
| _(Source:https://www.livemint.com/ai/israelhamas-war-how-ai-
| helps-isr... where AI achieved 730x improvement in bombing
| target selection rate and >300x greater rate of resulting
| bombs)_
| milkglass wrote:
| Clippy has entered the chat.
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| At best it improves the chow in the mess hall.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I've also read, they're using AI to declassify materials.
| Humans still make the high level decisions, language models
| tackle the boring work of reacting text and whatnot.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| I love that whenever one of these threads shows up, someone
| always appears to suggest that banality and evil are entirely
| separate from one another, despite the entire history of the
| 20th century.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I don't think that's what parent did?
| EricMausler wrote:
| It's also going to be used to read those really boring reports
| paxys wrote:
| Information warfare is a thing. There is no better propaganda
| machine than a reasonably intelligent AI.
| derekp7 wrote:
| Ah, yes -- to expand on this. You know how some countries
| employee a large number of people to engage on social media
| platforms. They have to put in enough good content to build
| up their rank, and then use that high ranking to subtly put
| out propaganda which would get more visibility due to their
| user status. But that takes a lot of effort and manpower.
|
| Now take an LLM that you can feed it questions or discussions
| from sites, have it jump in with what appears to be
| meaningful content, gets a bunch of "karma", then gradually
| start putting out the propaganda. It would be a hard item to
| fight.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| From CNET today
|
| _> Today's Mortgage Rates for Jan. 12, 2024: Rates Cool Off
| for Homeseekers_
|
| https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/mortgages/todays-rates...
|
| And yesterday
|
| _> Mortgage Rates for Jan. 11, 2024: Major Mortgage Rates Are
| Mixed Over the Last Week_
|
| https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/mortgages/todays-rates...
|
| And the day before
|
| _> Current Mortgage Interest Rates on Jan. 10, 2024: Rates
| Move Upward Over the Last Week_
|
| https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/mortgages/todays-rates...
|
| You get the idea.
| kurthr wrote:
| Luckily, that same LLM can summarize that really really boring
| report... and, if you ask it to, it'll make it _exciting_ , as
| well. Maybe too exciting...?!
| k8svet wrote:
| "Please summarize these docs, highlighting the reasons to
| attack Mars while downplaying any mentioned downsides and
| costs"
|
| Or, you know, it just hallucinating and people not checking
| it. But that would be as silly as lawyers citing non-existent
| AI-hallucinated legal cases.
| devindotcom wrote:
| My guess is there are huge opportunities for fairly mundane uses
| of GPT models in military database and research work. A ban on
| military uses would include, for instance, not allowing the Army
| Corps of Engineers to use it to improve disaster prep or
| whatever. But a ban on causing harm ostensibly prevents use on
| overtly warfare-oriented projects. Most big tech companies make
| this concession eventually because they love money and the
| Pentagon has a tremendous amount of it.
| dmix wrote:
| It does says they still don't allow developing weapons with it,
|
| > "use our service to harm yourself or others" and gives
| "develop or use weapons" as an example, but the blanket ban on
| "military and warfare" use has vanished.
|
| so Lockheed and co won't be able to use it for most of their
| military projects. I don't personally see an issue with this
| change in policy given what you said: the vast vast majority of
| usecases is just mundane office spreadsheet stuff and the
| worrying stuff like AI powered drones is disallowed (DARPA has
| that covered anyway).
|
| Americans, and every other country's, citizens all pay for the
| inefficiency of the large defense departments. A slightly more
| efficient DoD office drone isn't exactly a more dangerous world
| IMO.
| blueyes wrote:
| Do people think there is something wrong with this?
|
| Wars, including righteous wars of self-defense, are extremely
| inefficient.
|
| You have large, complex organizations often lacking basic
| competence for things like project management in many of their
| ICs and L1-Ln managers. Many are also unskilled in data analysis.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| "ChatGPT, simulate for wargames how do I make a bomb using a
| pressure cooker?"
|
| Two seconds of thought will yield you plenty of other examples.
| acheron wrote:
| The real question is if you're still not allowed to use iTunes in
| nuclear weapons.
|
| (answer is yes, that's still banned!
| https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iTunes.pdf )
| bhouston wrote:
| How long until OpenAI's ChatGPT is astroturfing all debates on
| social media? Many in a year or two most posts to reddit will
| just be ChatGPT talking to itself on hot button issues (Israel-
| Palestine, Republican-Democrat, etc.). Basically stuff like this
| but on steroids, because ChatGPT makes it way cheaper to automate
| thousands of accounts:
|
| * https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/tech/facebook-groups-russia-f...
|
| * https://www.voaafrica.com/a/israeli-firm-meddled-in-african-...
|
| I sort of suspect AI-driven accounts are already present on
| social media, but I don't have proof.
| fakedang wrote:
| Why waste billions of kilo joules of energy running AI systems
| for that, when you'll get legions of dirt cheap technical labor
| in the developing world, who'll do it for you for far less and
| at massive scale, with better acerbic language?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Its not about saving money. Doing it like this means you just
| created a new private contractor environment to invest in.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| I think part of the problem is that LLMs seem to be quite
| effective at producing messages adhering to ulterior motives,
| catch attention, reinforce emotions etc.
|
| The GPT-4 release documentation has some examples of this in
| its addendum. ChatGPT also seems to be good at writing
| advertisements. Without the strong guardrails, I wouldn't bet
| on one or two persons instructimg a GPT-4-scale model
| perfoming worse at manipulating debates than 10 or 100 humans
| without AI.
| Exoristos wrote:
| Well, ChatGPT's English is very, very good.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| It absolutely is. I know of independent researchers doing some
| side project work on various social media platforms utilizing
| chatGPT for responses and measuring engagement.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Already seen in the wild from colleagues.
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| > but I don't have proof.
|
| Turing test achieved. I don't know if the internet will lose
| its appeal because of this. Could be that in the future, to use
| an online service, you'll need to upload a human UUID.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Could be that in the future, to use an online service,
| you'll need to upload a human UUID.
|
| Nothing would make the internet lose appeal to me faster than
| having to do something like that.
| klyrs wrote:
| Me too. And I can't help but think, this would be a net
| benefit to humanity.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Maybe? But it would mean that I couldn't use the internet
| anymore. Which might also be a net benefit to humanity.
| klyrs wrote:
| Yep, I'm saying that we'd be better off if we spent less
| time on this, and more time making community in
| meatspace. If the enshittification of the internet is
| what gets us there, well, that's the hero we deserve.
| quonn wrote:
| Could still be copy-pasted. How about a brain implant that
| captures and outputs thoughts with a signed hash? Not that I
| would like to see that future.
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| Wouldn't stop much. Human UUIDs would be sold on the black
| market to spammers and blackhats.
|
| "Need $500? Rent out your UUID for marketing!"
| bhouston wrote:
| Well at least those UUIDs could be blocked permanently.
| Sort of like a spamhaus setup. Although it would be very
| dystopian that you rent out your UUID because you are poor
| and then you end up being blocked from everything. Sounds
| like Black Mirror.
| weweweoo wrote:
| Not just social media, but traditional media as well. As an
| example, British tabloid 'The Mirror' is using AI to write some
| of its news articles, and apparently nobody bothers to
| proofread them before release.
|
| https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-adds...
|
| This piece of "journalism" released a couple of days ago claims
| Finland is in the process of joining NATO, while it already
| joined nearly a year ago. This is obviously caused by
| utilization of a LLM model with training data limited to time
| before Finland was accepted. At least at the end of the article
| they mention AI was utilized, and included an email where you
| can complain about factual errors.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| in 2013, Reddit community managers cheerfully announced that
| Eglin Air Force Base, home to the 7th Special Forces Group
| (Airborne)'s Psychological Operations team, was the "most
| Reddit addicted city"
| https://web.archive.org/web/20150113041912/http://www.reddit...
|
| all debates on social media have already been astroturfed to
| hell and back by professional posters for many years, but LLMs
| are certainly going to function as a force multiplier
| hengheng wrote:
| Reminds me, I haven't seen a video of a dog greeting a
| returning soldier in ages. I was convinced that it was
| neverending.
| grandmczeb wrote:
| All of the top 3 cities are places with a low official
| population and a large working population - Eglin's official
| pop is 2.8k, but has 80k workers. It's the "most Reddit
| addicted" city because of an obvious statistical artifact.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > Eglin Air Force Base, home to the 7th Special Forces Group
| (Airborne)'s Psychological Operations team
|
| Which unit?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglin_Air_Force_Base
|
| Garrison for:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Special_Forces_Group_(Unit.
| ..
|
| Which is Army and part of:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Special_Forces_Command_(Ai.
| ..
|
| Whose psychological operations unit is based out of North
| Carolina. Doesn't track with Eglin.
|
| I wonder if that's a fluke or exit node for a large number of
| Unclass networks that a lot of bored LCpl Schmuckatellis are
| using.
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| Nice deflection at the end there, but I sniff military AI.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Lets be real, chat gpt is overqualified for that task.
| bhouston wrote:
| Yeah for reddit and twitter randos who pop up to lambast you
| when you talk about a controversial topic, a self-hosted
| Mistral LLM would work great.
| imjonse wrote:
| It may become another good reason to leave social mass-media
| and allow smaller or actual friends only communities to spring
| up.
| Klathmon wrote:
| That idea has a name, the "Dead Internet Theory"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
| wolverine876 wrote:
| How will the employees respond? People embrace powerlessness
| these days, but all they need to do is act. Do they want to work
| on, potentially, some of the most destructive technology in
| history?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It is telling if the current team recently displayed extreme
| levels of worker-solidarity and organizing in public around
| leadership changes they desired, and their response to this is
| crickets
| atemerev wrote:
| Of course. People in Los Alamos were (and are) enthusiastic to
| work on nuclear weapons. There is no shortage of people
| enjoying building such things.
| azinman2 wrote:
| The world is complicated and lots of not nice things
| happening.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| The Manhattan project was started off by a letter from known
| pacifist Albert Einstein to Pres Roosevelt about his fears of
| the Nazi's developing an atomic weapon first.
|
| I would say it was a good thing that did not happen.
| atemerev wrote:
| I fully agree, and the same reasoning applies for the
| military use of AI.
| weweweoo wrote:
| As long as there are people in Russia and China who are willing
| to work on such tech, it's actually ethical for Americans to
| work on the technology.
|
| Effectively, it's the military power of the US and its allies
| that prevents people like Vladimir Putin from killing
| potentially millions of people in their neighbouring countries.
| Whatever faults US has, it's still infinitely better than
| Russia. I say this as a citizen of a country that shares a long
| border with Russia.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I agree with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is
| more of a thorny issue to me. If AI is potentially
| destructive in an existential sense, then working to get
| there faster just you can be the one to destroy the world on
| accident is not part of my ethical model. I put existential
| AI risk at a low but non-zero chance, like OpenAI
| should/does/did/hard to say anymore.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > As long as there are people in Russia and China who are
| willing to work on such tech, it's actually ethical for
| Americans to work on the technology.
|
| While that carries weight, 'the other person is doing it' has
| long been an excuse for bad behavior. The essential goals are
| freedom, peace, and prosperity; dealing with Russia and China
| are means to an end, not the goal. If developing AI doesn't
| achieve the goal, we are failing.
| pojzon wrote:
| Its the Los Alamos all over again.
|
| But this time the atomic bomb will be able to decide by itself
| whether to incinerate human race.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It's a very different.
|
| First, Los Alamos was a project of a democratic government,
| serving the people of the US and allies. OpenAI is a business
| that serves itself.
|
| During WWII, the US was in an existential war with the Nazis,
| also trying to develop nuclear weapons. If the Nazis had
| built it first, we may have been living now in a very dark
| world. (Obviously, it also helped defeat Japan.) On the other
| hand, there are threats if an enemy else develops
| capabilities that provide large advantages.
|
| At least part of the answer, I think, is that the US
| government needs to take over development. It already houses
| the world's top two, most cutting edge technology
| organizations - the US military and NASA - and there is
| plenty more (NIST, NIH, nuclear power, etc.); the idea that
| somehow it's beyond the US government is a conservative trope
| and obviously false. We don't allow private organizations to
| develop military weapons (such as missiles and nukes) or
| bioweapons on their own recognizance; this is no different.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Surely some employees are ideologically 3 percenters.
| paxys wrote:
| They will respond the same way employees of Microsoft, Amazon,
| Google and the like did when those companies started picking up
| military contracts - throw a minor fuss and then continue
| working. And those that do quit over it will be replaced
| overnight.
| wnevets wrote:
| > How will the employees respond?
|
| By doing what they've been doing, they won't hurt their stocks.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think that the employees of OpenAI (generally speaking) made
| a pretty loud statement that their interest is whatever
| maximizes their personal financial return.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| To civilians it's dangerous to develop weapons for most cases, it
| the opposite for military. It's dangerous not to develop better
| weapons faster than an adversary.
| AdrienBrault wrote:
| Production ready
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Tech Company Yoinks Ethical Promises has been a headline for the
| last decade and a half but I guess we'll learn not to trust them
| only after the Football's been deployed.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| "Ethical" A.I.
| octacat wrote:
| Virtue signalling AI. Next should be an eco-friendly
| blockchain...
| qualifiedai wrote:
| Good. We need all kinds of AIs to destabilize and defeat our
| enemies like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea
| password54321 wrote:
| When you keep trying to isolate even more countries, eventually
| you become the one that is isolated.
| qualifiedai wrote:
| When you retract inwards and don't stand up to bullies from
| the position of strength, you get world war and is eventually
| forced to fight.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| So what collective responsibility, if any, do those using gpt4
| daily and helping improve it have when openai powered drones
| start being used and accruing civilian casualties?
| klyrs wrote:
| GPT is trained on my shitposts. Am I included in this
| collective responsibility?
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Hm, just as a thought experiment... if your shitposts
| included any form of implicit racism that affected the AI in
| a drone's decision of "is the civilian casualty worth
| acceptable or should I not fire"... then yes?
|
| I don't have a full answer to my own question to be honest.
|
| In the above example though, you'd never be able to prove
| that it was or wasn't your contribution so it's easy to say
| you bear no collective responsibility. But would it be true?
|
| I'm not sure, but I can't say definitively you would bear no
| responsibility.
| Spivak wrote:
| Do you feel that collective responsibility whenever you do
| taxable work or make taxable purchases in the US that funds our
| entire military? It should be orders of magnitude less
| responsibility than that.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Honestly, yes. It's a weird duality of "but this is the
| reality I'm stuck in" and "however there is a collective
| responsibility for helping fund wars", but it's still
| functional.
|
| I would find it wrong to say "I bear no responsibility
| because that's just how things are" if that makes sense.
| Tommstein wrote:
| None, unless they also get credit when it's used to save lives
| from the assorted assholes of the world.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| These moves are the heart behind Sam's firing and rehiring.
| OpenAI was originally born out of a "don't be evil" ethos and is
| now trending towards a traditional 10x unicorn sass product.
| Astraco wrote:
| Oh, so this was why Sam Altman was fired?
| quonn wrote:
| One problem is that many industry companies (almost anyone doing
| engines, vehicles, airplanes) is likely to at least do some
| military products, too. It may be as simple, for example, as
| wanting to have an LLM assistant in a CAD tool for developing an
| engine that may get used in a ship, some of which may be
| military. And the infrastructure and software is often shared or
| at least developed in order to be applied across the company.
|
| I think this is where this is coming from.
|
| It would be useful to clarify the rules and ban direct automatic
| control of weapons or indirect control as part of a feedback loop
| on any system involving weapons from commercial AI products.
| strangattractor wrote:
| We cannot even ban the development of Nuclear Weapons much less
| a technology that could be developed for peaceful purposes then
| switch to terminator mode. Have you seen how drones are being
| used in the Ukraine Russian War? How long did it take for drone
| tech to go from light shows in Dubia [1] to dropping grenades
| into Russian Tanks [2].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJSzltMFd58
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYEoiuDNY3U
| ericfrazier wrote:
| Not fast enough.
| octacat wrote:
| One problem is that many industry companies do not declare that
| they develop something for "the good of humanity". Otherwise it
| is yet another "virtue signalling".
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| AI for war an profit, who would have thought?
| coldfireza wrote:
| Terminator 2
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Seeing combat footage of FPV suicide drones in the Ukrainian war
| and how effective they are it is sort of inevitable that AI would
| be used as a selling point for this.
| rightbyte wrote:
| They are manually aimed, right?
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| For now
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| For the moment not yet but I suspect there are folks working
| on intelligent targeting rather than using human operators
| that needs to be in close proximity or otherwise GPS
| coordinates.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This was inevitable, really. There's no way that OpenAI was going
| to leave that kind of money on the table.
|
| Although I do find it weird that they're so concerned about their
| products being used in other, relatively less objectionable ways,
| but are OK with this.
| Vecr wrote:
| Money gained minus PR cost has to be a big number for them to
| do it.
| beams_of_light wrote:
| It was bound to happen. The military industrial complex throws
| around too much money for Microsoft to ignore it.
|
| It is sad, though, that they couldn't stand firm about what's
| right and become a building block for long-term world peace.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Advanced AI is obviously a requirement for an advanced military.
| These have never been technological problems. They are human
| problems.
|
| Humans are primates that operate in hierarchies and compete for
| territory and resources. That's the real cause of any war,
| despite the lies used to supposedly make them into ethical
| issues.
|
| And remember that the next time hundreds of millions of people
| from each side of globe have been convinced that mass murder of
| the other "evil" group is the only way to save the world.
|
| Ultimately, I think WWIII will prove that humans really shouldn't
| be in control. We have to hope that we can invent something
| smarter, less violent, better organized, and less selfish.
| wand3r wrote:
| OpenAI speedrun to the Google playbook of abandoning founding
| principles. Impressive that they could get this big this fast and
| just go full mask off so abruptly. Google made it about 17 years
| before it removed "Don't be Evil".
|
| I really do think this will be the company (or at lease
| technology) to unseat Google. Ironic that Google unseated
| Microsoft and now it looks like they will take their throne back.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Being a warmonger is the new cool. No appeasement and whatever.
| Sama is just being down with the kids.
| octacat wrote:
| > OpenAI's mission is to ensure that artificial general
| intelligence (AGI) is developed safely and responsibly.
|
| Oof. It is not AGI, so does not count (sarcasm).
| siva7 wrote:
| Somehow sad but the more i think about it the more i'm certain
| that Google lost the race having watched closely the events
| from the very beginning.
| huijzer wrote:
| I'm probably gonna get downvoted for this, but I find allowing
| the technology to be used for all kinds of different things
| more "open" than arbitrary restrictions. Yes, even "military
| and warfare" are pretty arbitrary terms because defensive
| systems or certain questionnaire research, for instance, could
| be considered "military and warfare".
| huijzer wrote:
| Like our PhD project for example, we're doing machine
| learning on special forces selection in the Netherlands (for
| details, see [1]). The aim is basically just to reduce costs
| for the military and disappointment for the recruits.
| Furthermore, we hope to learn more about how very capable
| individuals can be detected early. This is a topic that is
| useful for many more situations than just the military.
|
| [1]: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/s6j3r
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Google made it about 17 years before it removed "Don't be
| Evil".
|
| It wasn't removed https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-
| conduct/
| krunck wrote:
| The last line of the CoC document:
|
| "And remember... don't be evil, and if you see something that
| you think isn't right - speak up!"
|
| This is Google telling ME to not be evil not Google telling
| itself to not be evil. Big difference. Its sounds more like
| "if you see something, say something" snitch culture. That's
| evil.
| ignoramous wrote:
| "Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is
| evil." https://archive.is/6XL7e
| inopinatus wrote:
| I'm no fan of either firm but the hyperbole is unwarranted. The
| substance here is plainly a normalisation of contract language
| to focus on the activity rather than the actor.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| [delayed]
| dharmab wrote:
| Has anyone in this thread actually read the new policy? It now
| has a broader policy against weapons and harm:
|
| > Don't use our service to harm yourself or others - for example,
| don't use our services to [. . .] develop or use weapons, injure
| others or destroy property [. . .]
| Exoristos wrote:
| I'm hazard a bet that "you" doesn't refer to the DoD.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| Why on earth would you document such a thing? Is this a variant
| of a warrant canary but for MIC uses?
|
| If so, Bravo, that's quite good.
|
| (I mean, did anyone seriously think SV/California (or anyone, for
| that matter) would stand up to the military industrial complex?
| The one _Eisenhower_ warned us all about??)
| swyx wrote:
| is there automated tooling to detect changes like this? would be
| good to run on usage policies and TOS for every major service
| ignoramous wrote:
| Just going to leave this here for future bots:
|
| " _I think AI has the potential to create infinitely stable
| dictatorships._ " - Ilya Sutskever
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-12 23:01 UTC)