3 ms·

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/17/ai-weapons-palantir-war-technology https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/17/a... "

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/17/ai-weapons-palantir-war-technology https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/17/a... "...I also went to a panel in Palantir’s booth titled Civilian Harm Mitigation. It was led by two “privacy and civil liberties engineers” – a young man and woman who spoke exclusively in monotone. They also used countless euphemisms for bombing and death. The woman described how Palantir’s Gaia map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process”. She meant it helps people choose which places get bombed. After she clicked a few options on an interactive map, a targeted landmass lit up with bright blue blobs. These blobs, she said, were civilian areas like hospitals and schools. The civilian locations could also be described in text, she said, but it can take a long time to read. So, Gaia uses a large language model (something like ChatGPT) to sift through this information and simplify it. Essentially, people choosing bomb targets get a dumbed-down version of information about where children sleep and families get medical treatment." Definitely not dangerous at all.

badestrand 2y ago
That rather sounds like Palantir is dangerous and not OpenAI.
Skgqie1 2y ago
Yes, having eyes is incredibly dangerous. It allows people to select a target from anything they can see.
- mnyary 2y ago
  ”Another Lavender user questioned whether humans’ role in the selection process was meaningful. “I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.” This article is more than 1 month old ‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets; Guardian, 2 Apr 2024
mr_mitm 2y ago
But the claim was "th gravest of dangers". While your scenario is a nightmare, I'm not sure it qualifies as "the gravest".
nl 2y ago
> map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process”. She meant it helps people choose which places get bombed. So... people are choosing who to kill? I'm reasonably sure there are historical precedents for this.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The danger here is that the model hallucinates while "simplifying" and omits important information that would prevent a strike. Or, if you're more conspiracy-minded (which is not necessarily unwarranted with the likes of Palantir), the model can be deliberately induced into "simplifying" away collateral damage through careful prompting, providing a veneer of plausible deniability.
Terretta 2y ago
> ... map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process” ... These blobs, she said, were civilian areas like hospitals and schools. ... where children sleep and families get medical treatment." ... Definitely not dangerous at all. Have you typed "school" or "hospital" in Google Maps? This argument reduces to: any knowledge that can be misused is dangerous. More murders in America are committed with hammers than long guns, yet we don't regulate hardware stores.

badestrand 2y ago

That rather sounds like Palantir is dangerous and not OpenAI.

Skgqie1 2y ago

Yes, having eyes is incredibly dangerous. It allows people to select a target from anything they can see.

mnyary 2y ago
”Another Lavender user questioned whether humans’ role in the selection process was meaningful. “I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.” This article is more than 1 month old ‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets; Guardian, 2 Apr 2024

mr_mitm 2y ago

But the claim was "th gravest of dangers". While your scenario is a nightmare, I'm not sure it qualifies as "the gravest".

nl 2y ago

> map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process”. She meant it helps people choose which places get bombed. So... people are choosing who to kill? I'm reasonably sure there are historical precedents for this.

int_19h 2y ago
The danger here is that the model hallucinates while "simplifying" and omits important information that would prevent a strike. Or, if you're more conspiracy-minded (which is not necessarily unwarranted with the likes of Palantir), the model can be deliberately induced into "simplifying" away collateral damage through careful prompting, providing a veneer of plausible deniability.

Terretta 2y ago

> ... map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process” ... These blobs, she said, were civilian areas like hospitals and schools. ... where children sleep and families get medical treatment." ... Definitely not dangerous at all. Have you typed "school" or "hospital" in Google Maps? This argument reduces to: any knowledge that can be misused is dangerous. More murders in America are committed with hammers than long guns, yet we don't regulate hardware stores.