4 ms·
I'm sure you can understand that both of them are awful, and one does not justify the other (feel free to choose which is the "one" and which is the "other").
by javcasas 2y ago
I'm sure you can understand that both of them are awful, and one does not justify the other (feel free to choose which is the "one" and which is the "other").
- throwaway290 2y agoOh, totally. If there were two sides indiscriminately killing each other for no reason I couldn't say one justifies the other. But back to the topic, if one side is using ML to ultimately kill fewer civilians then this is a bad example against using ML.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago> But back to the topic, if one side is using ML to ultimately kill fewer civilians then this is a bad example against using ML. Depends on how that ML was trained and how well its engineers can explain and understand how its outputs are derived from its inputs. LLM’s are notoriously hard to trace and explain.
- throwaway290 2y agoI don't disagree.
- javcasas 2y agoAlso the military is notorious for ignoring requests by scientists, for example to not use the nuclear bomb as a weapon of war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szil%C3%A1rd_petition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szil%C3%A1rd_petition So the developers may program the AI to be careful, but the military has the final word on deciding if the AI is set on safety or agressiveness.