4 ms·

It is really interesting that many people in this world seem to refuse to allow AI to insult (or offend) any person but would be okay if AI took part of killing

It is really interesting that many people in this world seem to refuse to allow AI to insult (or offend) any person but would be okay if AI took part of killing them (if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time of course). I don't share this opinion and would be interested to hear about what is the thought process of people that come to support that. Other than financial aspect (people who actually benefit financially), Is it something like our enemies will use it so we should too ? Does this mean not using that against your enemies that does not use it or what ?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nyokodo 2y ago
> refuse to allow AI to insult (or offend) any person but would be okay if AI took part of killing them Liability and regulatory scrutiny are factors. They’re liable about offensive speech but military use cases are an effective shield against liability given that deaths are expected.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  >They’re liable about offensive speech there's nothing preventing them from implementing a toggleable filter, with a big red warning, geo-restrictions and even age verification if you want to turn it off. it's not legal liability that prevents them from doing that, it's ideology.
  - nyokodo 2y ago
    > there's nothing preventing them from implementing a toggleable filter Which would not placate regulators in all likelihood. Close regulatory scrutiny is a big problem for companies seeking to grow, and a pesky cost for big companies.
    - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
      that would make sense if Anthropic didn't spend the past two years hyping up retarded parrots as literally scifi skynet bullshit, begging the nanny state to step in and regoolate the shit out of retarded parrots industry before the unthinkable happens and a retarded parrot escapes the confinement to destroy the democracy
chc4 2y ago
Anthropic and AI alignment research isn't about making AI that are DnD-style "good alignment", but making AI that have outcomes that are aligned with the goals that the designers intended for them. The chatbot AI model and goals are not the same model and goals for a defense AI. The goals for a chatbot assistant are to be useful, correct, and not insult people. The goals for a defense AI are to extract correct features, provide useful guidance, and not kill the wrong people. If you are working in defense you already have a belief that your work is morally correct: most of those justifications are either that your work will kill bad people more effectively, and so save friendly lives, or will pick who to kill most correctly, and so save innocent lives. Having an AI that is better aligned towards those goals are better. You may disagree that working in defense is ever morally justified! But Palantir dont't share those beliefs, and want to do as good of a job as they can, and so want the most aligned AI model they can.
- danesparza 2y ago
  And what happens when the defense AI 'hallucinates' and suggests that somebody is a terrorist when they are not?
  - rodgerd 2y ago
    Security podcasters will cheer you killing kids because you might have hit a few terrorists in the process.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > what happens when the defense AI 'hallucinates' and suggests that somebody is a terrorist when they are not? Collateral damage. Same thing that happens in any war when an analyst or soldier misreads the battlespace. War is hell. We won’t change that by making it pleasant. We can only avoid it by not going to war.
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      [flagged]
yieldcrv 2y ago
Corporation's only morals are the legal consequences when those consequences are more expensive than continued operation. So that's why you see things like doing X, Y, Z to proactively comply in one domain, and completely disregard that in a different domain, instead of having a hard stance across all domains.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> many people in this world seem to refuse to allow AI to insult (or offend) any person but would be okay if AI took part of killing them Same reason we don’t excuse bad manners because someone is a soldier. It’s easy to be polite, and the damage is done at home. It’s harder to accept subordination to a foreign power that pursued an obvious military direction. And the damage of your own system will hopefully happen elsewhere.
aiforecastthway 2y ago
Suppose you're Sam, the CEO of a company that spends a TON on customer service -- both customer/client-facing and internal HR processing and so on. Suppose Sam wants to automate those interactions. Sam probably wants that automation to be very robust to abuse, and avoid entangling the company in any sort of nonsense -- legal, cultural, or otherwise. Do the job, do it well, and stay on script. Don't insult the customer. Take abuse with a smile in your face. You know, the sort of stuff that the human people doing those roles now are trained on and understand. To the extent that Sam can get woke-y extraordinarily cheap faculty/phd students to do enthusiastic labor for his customer service automation by calling it "alignment" or "AI Safety", well, all the better! Not sure what any of that has to do with whether Sam or his company supports the use of automated weaponry. As for how faculty and students characterize this type of research? There are a few kinds o things going on, not least of which is ego. But the most important, from Sam's perspective, is "academia-washing". But using a university as his contractor and calling his contractors' junior employees "students", Sam gets to skirt the whole visa thing!!! This for the small price of a faculty member "academia-washing" his internal R&D problem statement.
hello_computer 2y ago
Gotta make things safe for our advertisers. Hard to sell ice cream to a woman after your bot just called her a fatty. While murder is zero-sum. Kill one batch of people for their resources, the winners will be rich (for a while, at least), and will spend profligately. It’s good for business!
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Kill one batch of people for their resources This hasn’t been true in a long time. (Some countries took longer to learn it than others.)
  - hello_computer 2y ago
    It is still true. We just do it indirectly through economic shocks. Disrupt their economy with bombs/sanctions/tariffs/militias/etc, force them to sell at a discount, pat yourself on the back for just being a better businessman, then keep writing checks to both sides of the aisle--internationally even--to keep the hardships in-place. Wikipedia any South American country for examples.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vundercind 2y ago
I get where you’re coming from but think it comes down to context. Supporting the use of airplanes in war doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support an ordinance to prohibit sky-writing the N-word over the Macy’s parade.
zx10rse 2y ago
What most people seems to not understand is that sooner or later this tech will be used against you. Who knows tomorrow we might be the enemy.
- pkaye 2y ago
  Apparently the open source llama is already benefiting the Chinese military. The technology is already out there. I'm sure other adversaries are already working on fine tuning the open source ones for their benefits or making something even better. So just sit back and watch the fireworks. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/chinese-researchers-build-military-ai-using-metas-open-source-llama-model-chatbit-allegedly-performs-at-around-90-percent-of-the-performance-of-openai-gpt-4-llm https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
  - dtquad 2y ago
    China can train 70B and 400B LLM models using pre-sanction Nvidia GPUs. The only reason they are loudly announcing "Hey our military is using YOUR open source models" is to trigger fearmongering and overzealous regulation in the West and make us less competitive in AI.
    - Palmik 2y ago
      Or NVidia H20, which is Hopper GPU for China, very similar to H100 NVL 96GB. This was used by Tencent for their SOTA open source model (Hunyuan).
  - Palmik 2y ago
    The best open source LLMs are Chinese (Qwen 2.5 and Hunyuan)
dtquad 2y ago
US AI companies have had plans to pivot to both Safety™ and to Accelerationism™ depending on who would win the US election. The election results are in: Accelerationism™ won. Jokes aside; All frontier model AI companies were closely associated with US big tech companies that were facing threats about breakup from the Democrats (OpenAI/Microsoft, Anthropic/AWS, and Google). They really didn't want AI anxiety to be one more reason they were disliked by Washington.
nova22033 2y ago
but would be okay if AI took part of killing them (if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time of course). the Obama administration did this with the drone program...10 years before ChatGPT or LLMs
- consumer451 2y ago
  Is that a good thing? I mean, especially amongst progressive minded folks, the creation of an opaque corporate panopticon was a notable problem, disguised as "hope."
  - meta_x_ai 2y ago
    You can always go to a country where no one will attack you because you are a nice guy who sings sweet kumbhaya
    - consumer451 2y ago
      My point was that Obama was supposedly that guy.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nyokodo 2y ago

> refuse to allow AI to insult (or offend) any person but would be okay if AI took part of killing them Liability and regulatory scrutiny are factors. They’re liable about offensive speech but military use cases are an effective shield against liability given that deaths are expected.

123yawaworht456 2y ago
>They’re liable about offensive speech there's nothing preventing them from implementing a toggleable filter, with a big red warning, geo-restrictions and even age verification if you want to turn it off. it's not legal liability that prevents them from doing that, it's ideology.
- nyokodo 2y ago
  > there's nothing preventing them from implementing a toggleable filter Which would not placate regulators in all likelihood. Close regulatory scrutiny is a big problem for companies seeking to grow, and a pesky cost for big companies.
  - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
    that would make sense if Anthropic didn't spend the past two years hyping up retarded parrots as literally scifi skynet bullshit, begging the nanny state to step in and regoolate the shit out of retarded parrots industry before the unthinkable happens and a retarded parrot escapes the confinement to destroy the democracy

chc4 2y ago

Anthropic and AI alignment research isn't about making AI that are DnD-style "good alignment", but making AI that have outcomes that are aligned with the goals that the designers intended for them. The chatbot AI model and goals are not the same model and goals for a defense AI. The goals for a chatbot assistant are to be useful, correct, and not insult people. The goals for a defense AI are to extract correct features, provide useful guidance, and not kill the wrong people. If you are working in defense you already have a belief that your work is morally correct: most of those justifications are either that your work will kill bad people more effectively, and so save friendly lives, or will pick who to kill most correctly, and so save innocent lives. Having an AI that is better aligned towards those goals are better. You may disagree that working in defense is ever morally justified! But Palantir dont't share those beliefs, and want to do as good of a job as they can, and so want the most aligned AI model they can.

danesparza 2y ago
And what happens when the defense AI 'hallucinates' and suggests that somebody is a terrorist when they are not?
- rodgerd 2y ago
  Security podcasters will cheer you killing kids because you might have hit a few terrorists in the process.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > what happens when the defense AI 'hallucinates' and suggests that somebody is a terrorist when they are not? Collateral damage. Same thing that happens in any war when an analyst or soldier misreads the battlespace. War is hell. We won’t change that by making it pleasant. We can only avoid it by not going to war.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    [flagged]

yieldcrv 2y ago

Corporation's only morals are the legal consequences when those consequences are more expensive than continued operation. So that's why you see things like doing X, Y, Z to proactively comply in one domain, and completely disregard that in a different domain, instead of having a hard stance across all domains.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> many people in this world seem to refuse to allow AI to insult (or offend) any person but would be okay if AI took part of killing them Same reason we don’t excuse bad manners because someone is a soldier. It’s easy to be polite, and the damage is done at home. It’s harder to accept subordination to a foreign power that pursued an obvious military direction. And the damage of your own system will hopefully happen elsewhere.

aiforecastthway 2y ago

Suppose you're Sam, the CEO of a company that spends a TON on customer service -- both customer/client-facing and internal HR processing and so on. Suppose Sam wants to automate those interactions. Sam probably wants that automation to be very robust to abuse, and avoid entangling the company in any sort of nonsense -- legal, cultural, or otherwise. Do the job, do it well, and stay on script. Don't insult the customer. Take abuse with a smile in your face. You know, the sort of stuff that the human people doing those roles now are trained on and understand. To the extent that Sam can get woke-y extraordinarily cheap faculty/phd students to do enthusiastic labor for his customer service automation by calling it "alignment" or "AI Safety", well, all the better! Not sure what any of that has to do with whether Sam or his company supports the use of automated weaponry. As for how faculty and students characterize this type of research? There are a few kinds o things going on, not least of which is ego. But the most important, from Sam's perspective, is "academia-washing". But using a university as his contractor and calling his contractors' junior employees "students", Sam gets to skirt the whole visa thing!!! This for the small price of a faculty member "academia-washing" his internal R&D problem statement.

hello_computer 2y ago

Gotta make things safe for our advertisers. Hard to sell ice cream to a woman after your bot just called her a fatty. While murder is zero-sum. Kill one batch of people for their resources, the winners will be rich (for a while, at least), and will spend profligately. It’s good for business!

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Kill one batch of people for their resources This hasn’t been true in a long time. (Some countries took longer to learn it than others.)
- hello_computer 2y ago
  It is still true. We just do it indirectly through economic shocks. Disrupt their economy with bombs/sanctions/tariffs/militias/etc, force them to sell at a discount, pat yourself on the back for just being a better businessman, then keep writing checks to both sides of the aisle--internationally even--to keep the hardships in-place. Wikipedia any South American country for examples.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vundercind 2y ago

I get where you’re coming from but think it comes down to context. Supporting the use of airplanes in war doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support an ordinance to prohibit sky-writing the N-word over the Macy’s parade.

zx10rse 2y ago

What most people seems to not understand is that sooner or later this tech will be used against you. Who knows tomorrow we might be the enemy.

pkaye 2y ago
Apparently the open source llama is already benefiting the Chinese military. The technology is already out there. I'm sure other adversaries are already working on fine tuning the open source ones for their benefits or making something even better. So just sit back and watch the fireworks. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/chinese-researchers-build-military-ai-using-metas-open-source-llama-model-chatbit-allegedly-performs-at-around-90-percent-of-the-performance-of-openai-gpt-4-llm https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
- dtquad 2y ago
  China can train 70B and 400B LLM models using pre-sanction Nvidia GPUs. The only reason they are loudly announcing "Hey our military is using YOUR open source models" is to trigger fearmongering and overzealous regulation in the West and make us less competitive in AI.
  - Palmik 2y ago
    Or NVidia H20, which is Hopper GPU for China, very similar to H100 NVL 96GB. This was used by Tencent for their SOTA open source model (Hunyuan).
- Palmik 2y ago
  The best open source LLMs are Chinese (Qwen 2.5 and Hunyuan)

dtquad 2y ago

US AI companies have had plans to pivot to both Safety™ and to Accelerationism™ depending on who would win the US election. The election results are in: Accelerationism™ won. Jokes aside; All frontier model AI companies were closely associated with US big tech companies that were facing threats about breakup from the Democrats (OpenAI/Microsoft, Anthropic/AWS, and Google). They really didn't want AI anxiety to be one more reason they were disliked by Washington.

nova22033 2y ago

but would be okay if AI took part of killing them (if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time of course). the Obama administration did this with the drone program...10 years before ChatGPT or LLMs

consumer451 2y ago
Is that a good thing? I mean, especially amongst progressive minded folks, the creation of an opaque corporate panopticon was a notable problem, disguised as "hope."
- meta_x_ai 2y ago
  You can always go to a country where no one will attack you because you are a nice guy who sings sweet kumbhaya
  - consumer451 2y ago
    My point was that Obama was supposedly that guy.