[HN Gopher] Why American tech companies need to help build AI we...
___________________________________________________________________
Why American tech companies need to help build AI weaponry
Author : uncertainrhymes
Score : 12 points
Date : 2024-06-25 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| uncertainrhymes wrote:
| I agree with very little of this, but good to know what Palantir
| thinks we should be spending our effort on.
| bithive123 wrote:
| First we invent a machine to kill, then someone invents a machine
| to kill that machine, and so on. We call this progress. An
| endless cycle of violence perpetuated by the pursuit of one
| group's security at the expense of another's.
|
| Is warfare a fact of life? Maybe. But to take actions which
| logically and demonstrably create the very insecurity they are
| meant to avoid is irrational. Point this out and you are branded
| an idealist. "Humanity is doomed to violence, so always be ready
| to kill" is apparently sage wisdom.
| sirspacey wrote:
| Within a systemic lens, yes it is. As weaponry has gotten more
| deadly, conflicts have gotten less.
|
| There has never been an instance of stable human civilization
| (beyond small groups or extremely defensible/remote locations)
| that did not involve the ability to be violent. That ability is
| not durable. The skills required to ensure it does not become
| the purpose of a society is not durable. It takes craft,
| community, and hard work to cultivate the readiness for
| violence and restrain its application.
|
| It is fine for people to disavow violence. It is beneficial
| that they do. You will find in the military people who value
| pacifism more deeply than your average citizen.
|
| We do not have to believe or participate in something to be
| grateful for the people who do. One personal experience with
| violence and the value of the readiness to respond becomes
| apparent.
| riversflow wrote:
| Yes, that is sage wisdom. It is a fallacy to think that humans
| exist in any sort of harmony with nature. The law of nature is
| kill or be killed. I'm reminded of this each summer when wasps
| try to take my home from me.
| anon291 wrote:
| The issue with your take is that those who believe humanity is
| doomed to violence have hard scientific evidence on their side.
| bithive123 wrote:
| By inductive reasoning that's an understandable opinion;
| human beings have had wars somewhere every day for thousands
| of years. Is the conclusion that therefore violence is
| inevitable prescriptive as well? Where do we draw the line
| between accepting necessary violence (someone attacks you)
| and perpetuating the cycle (arms races)? Do the laws of
| physics somehow require humans to engage in violent
| conflicts?
|
| It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in
| our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and
| experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error
| and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong
| turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with
| violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say
| "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition".
|
| Maybe the best we can do is individually not contribute to
| the various forms of violence. This requires a level of
| responsibility that is abdicated when we start with the
| conclusion that violence is mandatory. It's not very
| scientific to start with a conclusion.
| anon291 wrote:
| > It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is
| in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and
| experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the
| error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take
| a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens
| with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and
| say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition".
|
| I'm having trouble understanding here. Is your contention
| that the alternative to being a pacifist means giving up?
|
| To the contrary, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has
| resulted in a world safer than it's ever been
| gumby wrote:
| While it's all thermodynamic deadweight loss, if I have to
| choose between them I'd rather the machines were destroying
| just machines, not the humans.
| more_corn wrote:
| No.
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| > The record of humanity's management of the [nuclear] weapon --
| imperfect and, indeed, dozens of times nearly catastrophic -- has
| been remarkable. Nearly a century of some version of peace has
| prevailed in the world without a great-power military conflict.
|
| This is so offensive. I am infuriated. The last hundred years has
| been anything but peace for Middle East. You can continue not
| caring from SF.
| anon291 wrote:
| The middle east is not the only part of the planet. The middle
| east's current state used to be the regular state for Europe
| and most of the rest of the world. The world today is
| objectively more peaceful than ever.
|
| By and large, had the nuclear non-proliferationists been
| stopped, there would also be no war in Ukraine.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| No one likes to hear it and that's why you're being
| downvoted, but it turns out that it takes putting the gun to
| our collective heads for us to realize that pulling the
| trigger is a bad idea. I do think nuclear non-proliferation
| is a double-edged sword, and states that have pursued it have
| not fared well.
| drlemonpepper wrote:
| https://archive.is/J0JUe
| Havoc wrote:
| The whole human in the loop thing sure seems to be getting
| quieter by the minute.
| lambdaone wrote:
| It's not a foregone conclusion. We have managed to ban chemical
| weapons. laser blinding weapons and biological weapons on a
| global scale. If there was sufficient will to do so, we could do
| this for autonomous weapons as well.
|
| The argument that "bad people will do X", so we must do X to them
| first, is a race to the bottom.
|
| This article is, however, very revealing about what Palantir
| _wants_ to happen, without ever mentioning the profit motive.
| anon291 wrote:
| We just had a pandemic whose cause is plausibly linked to
| bioweapons research. No one can possibly make the statement
| that we've managed to ban bio weapons in good faith.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Some types of tech are easier to ban. But some type of
| reesearch is near impossible to ban and verify that no one is
| actually working on it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-25 23:02 UTC)