3 ms·

Makes sense pragmatically. I don’t think they could feasibly prevent parties with nation state resources from using it in this way anyway.

inopinatus 3y ago
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 3y ago
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.

3 ms·

Makes sense pragmatically. I don’t think they could feasibly prevent parties with nation state resources from using it in this way anyway.

by badgersnake 3y ago

inopinatus 3y ago
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 3y ago
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.