18 ms·
OpenAI deletes ban on using ChatGPT for "military and warfare"
- rthkljlkrj 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wahnfrieden 3y agoRelated: https://www.livemint.com/ai/israelhamas-war-how-ai-helps-israel-army-select-bombing-targets-in-gaza-11701528705126.html 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 3y agoI mean it makes sense right, when you really think about it: money.
- tracerbulletx 3y agoYou also don't really have a choice but to play ball with the national security establishment.
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoTell 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 3y ago> all of whom took principled stands against such apparatus. Yeah, and look what happened to them.
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoPrincipled stances aren't often a path to prosperity. They do, however, afford you the luxury of not actively contributing to mass murder.
- curtis3389 3y agoIf Hobby Lobby can be Christian, any business can be Buddhist.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoEven Buddhist countries can have an aggressive military - see Myanmar.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissim_Amon & translation of the original message from Amon: https://sites.google.com/view/nissimamontranslation https://sites.google.com/view/nissimamontranslation )
- curtis3389 3y agoIt 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_ 3y agoMakes you wonder what exactly happened behind the scenes for the OpenAI board to vote to fire Sam Altman
- tgv 3y agoTheir IPO curve showed signs of not being exponential.
- EA-3167 3y agoIt 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.
- junofan 3y agoI 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 3y agoI 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.
- svilen_dobrev 3y ago[flagged]
- ChicagoDave 3y agoWho’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 3y ago> Who doesn’t think China has a ten year AI algorithm to takeover Taiwan? anybody who works in either AI or natsec
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- paganel 3y agoAI 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 https://archive.is/1u7OK
- matkoniecz 3y ago> Who doesn’t think China has a ten year AI algorithm to takeover Taiwan? What it is supposed to mean?
- badgersnake 3y agoMakes sense pragmatically. I don’t think they could feasibly prevent parties with nation state resources from using it in this way anyway.
- inopinatus 3y agoSince 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 3y agoUnilateral 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 3y agoImagine 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 3y agoBy the same logic, chemists in the USA should work on nerve gas, because if they don't North Korea will?
- FpUser 3y agoIf 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 3y agoThis is terrible logic and we (the international community) have banned several kinds of terrible weapons to avoid this kind of lose-lose escalation logic.
- creato 3y agoThe only reason the US or any other country gave up chemical weapons is because they are nearly useless anyways. There are plenty of other weapons (such as mines) that the “international community” has “banned”, but are very useful in a war. Any country that doesn’t or can’t expect the US to come to its rescue ignores such bans and still manufactures them in great quantities.
- daveguy 3y agoThat'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.
- cedws 3y ago[flagged]
- climatekid 3y agoReality is AI is going to be used to write really really boring reports Not everything is a spy movie
- wahnfrieden 3y agoAI 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-israel-army-select-bombing-targets-in-gaza-11701528705126.html 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 3y agoClippy has entered the chat.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 3y agoAt best it improves the chow in the mess hall.
- Manuel_D 3y agoI'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.
- ttyprintk 3y agoAnd FOIA requests; getting a jump on the eventual bloom.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoI 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.
- devindotcom 3y agoMy 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 3y agoIt 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.
- crawfordcomeaux 3y agoMaking the DoD more efficient is absolutely dangerous, given the current state of things where Israel is being tried for war crimes in international courts & primary western media outlets only shows their defense, not the prosecution's case. When the president is unilaterally ordering strikes against Yemen because they make shipping more expensive for Israel. Making this killing machine more efficient at doing anything besides dying or self-dismantlement is harmful to liberation around the world.
- Theory42 3y agoIt seems you have it out for the US and Israel specifically, which is certainly a take, but not a very well rounded one. If you were, say, against the use of this particular technology for any military, that would be one thing, but you seem to only want the US DoD to not have it.
- RagnarD 3y ago[flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago> Does anybody really think Flamebait. As if anyone who disagrees is naive.
- RagnarD 3y agoIn this case, yes.
- ben_w 3y ago> The real threat are power lusting humans with enormous resources supporting malevolent motives It's one of many real threats; even asking which threat is most significant is moot given how many ways mere automation can radically disempower people — one of the other recent topics here was the UK Post Office scandal, where entirely normal software with entirely normal bugs was treated as an infallible oracle leading to unjust convictions and suicides.
- blueyes 3y ago[flagged]
- JohnMakin 3y ago"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.
- blueyes 3y agohate to tell you but that is already easy to Google. terrorists have all the recipes they need. What you can't get from google is auto-data analysis.
- JohnMakin 3y agoNo it isn’t, and google won’t give in depth explanations and troubleshoot for you. This is just one example of course, as I said, think of as many as you want.
- acheron 3y agoThe 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 https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iTunes.pdf )
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ijhuygft776 3y agoApple doesn't know that music is the solution to everything.
- bhouston 3y agoHow 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-fake-accounts/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/tech/facebook-groups-russia-f... * https://www.voaafrica.com/a/israeli-firm-meddled-in-african-other-elections---report/6963869.html 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.
- mechanical_bear 3y agoIt absolutely is. I know of independent researchers doing some side project work on various social media platforms utilizing chatGPT for responses and measuring engagement.
- fakedang 3y agoWhy 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?
- Exoristos 3y agoWell, ChatGPT's English is very, very good.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoIts not about saving money. Doing it like this means you just created a new private contractor environment to invest in.
- moritzwarhier 3y agoI 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.
- m3kw9 3y agoTo 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.
- wolverine876 3y agoHow 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 3y agoIt 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 3y agoOf 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 3y agoThe world is complicated and lots of not nice things happening.
- tibbydudeza 3y agoThe 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 3y agoI fully agree, and the same reasoning applies for the military use of AI.
- protomolecule 3y agoBut when Nazi were defeated the good guys in Los Alamos continued developing nuclear bombs.
- AdrienBrault 3y agoProduction ready
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoTech 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 3y ago“Ethical” A.I.
- octacat 3y agoVirtue signalling AI. Next should be an eco-friendly blockchain...
- swyx 3y agois there automated tooling to detect changes like this? would be good to run on usage policies and TOS for every major service
- ttyprintk 3y agoChangedetection.io https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37348162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37348162
- qualifiedai 3y agoGood. We need all kinds of AIs to destabilize and defeat our enemies like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea
- password54321 3y agoWhen you keep trying to isolate even more countries, eventually you become the one that is isolated.
- qualifiedai 3y agoWhen 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 3y agoSo 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 3y agoGPT is trained on my shitposts. Am I included in this collective responsibility?
- ParetoOptimal 3y agoHm, 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.
- klyrs 3y agoBut here's the thing, I've been shitposting since before the eternal September. Long before LLMs were invented. I had no idea that my writings would ever be used in such a way. I'm trying to find an ethical analogue. If you dig up an old porno that I made 20 years ago, and show that to my child, am I responsible for the trauma it causes?
- Spivak 3y agoDo 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 3y agoHonestly, 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.
- jorblumesea 3y agoThese 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 3y agoOh, so this was why Sam Altman was fired?
- quonn 3y agoOne 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.
- octacat 3y agoOne 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".
- strangattractor 3y agoWe 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJSzltMFd58 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYEoiuDNY3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYEoiuDNY3U
- ericfrazier 3y agoNot fast enough.
- int_19h 3y agoThe real crazy stuff isn't the grenade-bombing drones; it's FPV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe5RvttOs-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe5RvttOs-E. They have pretty much replaced guided anti-tank missiles for both sides because of how much cheaper they are, and the ability to easily fly around and hit where the armor is thinnest, or even inside the vehicle, before exploding; they can also fly inside trenches, bunkers, and other emplacementes. DJI FPV ($1k retail) supposedly has about 1 in 3 chance of taking out a moving tank that is not a sitting duck - i.e. hatches closed etc - and does not expose the operator to danger in the process. For comparison, a single Javelin is $240k. FPV drones are cheap enough that they're routinely used even against minor targets such as unarmored small cars and even individual soldiers - even after accounting for failures before a successful hit, it still ends up costing the enemy a lot more in $$$ than was spent on all the drones.
- WhackyIdeas 3y agoAI for war an profit, who would have thought?
- coldfireza 3y agoTerminator 2
- strangattractor 3y ago[flagged]
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago[flagged]
- tibbydudeza 3y agoSeeing 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 3y agoThey are manually aimed, right?
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoFor now
- tibbydudeza 3y agoFor 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.
- rightbyte 3y agoIt is probably "easy" to make them finding targets, but I guess the part where it should differ friend from foes and civilians is the hard part? Otherwise it's just some kind of mine.
- Arch485 3y agoI would posit that making some AI-controlled weaponry on par with humans at target identification/recognition is not too hard, and definitely doable with today's tech. Making one that's _better_ than humans though, that's the tricky part. Another issue is full autonomy: even human soldiers/pilots/etc. are not fully autonomous - they will ask command if there are civilians or friendly units in the AO, as they don't always have enough information to make that decision themselves. To achieve that with machines (not necessarily AI), you either need a fully integrated system (i.e. humans are obsolete for military use), or you need an efficient and functional human-machine interface. So I don't expect we'll be seeing fully autonomous AI weaponry anytime soon, despite it being technologically possible. AI-_assisted_ weaponry, however, probably already exists.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 3y agoThis 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 3y agoMoney gained minus PR cost has to be a big number for them to do it.
- ijhuygft776 3y agoThe government probably already had a secret law that allowed them to use it anyways...
- manquer 3y agoMicrosoft can sell and host GPT with their own terms , so this was just PR from day one . More likely they are anticipating public news about military usage sooner than later and removing this to Mitigate the pr damage .
- beams_of_light 3y agoIt 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 3y agoAdvanced 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.
- nojvek 3y agoHumans shouldn’t be in control of technologies that can wipe out entire nations. Cheap AI drones that kill with precision by the millions are the ultimate weapon. More powerful than Nuclear. Nuclear is a very big but blunt instrument of war. Drones are small and sharp instruments. You can command it to kill every human in a geographic region without any other structural damage. It would happily obey that instruction.
- wand3r 3y agoOpenAI 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 3y agoBeing a warmonger is the new cool. No appeasement and whatever. Sama is just being down with the kids.
- lebean 3y agoFinding applications for defense = warmongering?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rightbyte 3y ago"Defense"? Really? But, no, not really, no. I tried to be funny and relate to the zeitgeist. Another example is the Occulus guy, that pivoted into levering something VR I guess to make stuff to kill other people since Zuckerberg crushed him.
- enraged_camel 3y ago"Defense" doesn't mean much. Department of Defense regularly conducts offensive wars.
- manquer 3y agoFor most of its history from 1789 to 1943 it was war department. It is just rebranded not changed in the last 70 years
- dharmab 3y agoHas 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 [. . .]
- dontupvoteme 3y agoWhy 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??)
- ignoramous 3y agoJust going to leave this here for future bots: "I think AI has the potential to create infinitely stable dictatorships." - Ilya Sutskever
- ada1981 3y agoWe used OpenAI ChatGPT to develop a patent for a product that can, among other things, he used to embed thoughts into a targets mind / a psychosis ray.
- moomin 3y agoI mean, Sam Altman won this battle months ago. It was all anyone was talking about on here.
- meroes 3y agoAnd the AI evangelists go wild!
- hammyhavoc 3y agoIf I can't get ChatGPT to not hallucinate consistently over basic tasks nor truly understand what is said, this is a terrible idea. Forever getting "my apologies" as constantly correcting it. Total waste of time for most things, but that isn't to say that AI/ML as a field is a waste of time, far from it—I just think LLMs are largely all sizzle and very little steak.
- ac130kz 3y agoWhy yall not happy, Sam Altman's greedy deeds supporters?
- nojvek 3y agoThat sweet military industrial complex $$$$$. Who can say no to a small chunk of $800B budget.
- amai 3y agoSilicon Valley Was and Is The Child of the Military-Industrial Complex: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/185100 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/185100
- gigama 3y ago“There is a distinct difference between the two policies, as the former clearly outlines that weapons development, and military and warfare is disallowed, while the latter emphasizes flexibility and compliance with the law. Developing weapons, and carrying out activities related to military and warfare is lawful to various extents. The potential implications for AI safety are significant. Given the well-known instances of bias and hallucination present within Large Language Models (LLMs), and their overall lack of accuracy, their use within military warfare can only lead to imprecise and biased operations that are likely to exacerbate harm and civilian casualties.”
- trizuz 3y ago[dead]