4 ms·
Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border - none of them have a problem being unethical internationally (all the red lines
by isodev 8mo ago
Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border - none of them have a problem being unethical internationally (all the red lines talk is about what they don’t want to do in the us)
- mlyle 8mo ago? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally. Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. (But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus).
- Jeremy1026 8mo agoOne of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance.
- mlyle 8mo ago> > Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. > One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance. And?
- laffOr 8mo agoSome people feel that mass surveillance is wrong whether it is domestic or not. For those people, being ok with mass surveillance as long that it is not done to your kind is a morally wrong stance.
- Forgeties79 8mo ago>and? A little more effort/less obvious bait would go a long way to fostering a more productive discussion.
- isodev 8mo agoI don’t think deploying “80% right” tools for mass surveillance (or anything that can remotely impact human life) counts as lawful in any context. Just because the US currently lacks a functioning legislative branch doesn’t magically make it OK when gaps in the law are reworded into “national security”
- mlyle 8mo agoI'm really not sure what you're trying to say or assert, so you can put it more clearly.
- Forgeties79 8mo agoThe tools are not good enough to be ethically deployed, least of all for surveillance. Just because Congress is failing to do its job doesn’t mean the executive branch should simply do what it wants under the guise of “national security.”
- mlyle 8mo agoI think there's a notable distinction between "domestic mass-surveillance" and use in international intelligence gathering. The poster said: > Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border It seems like Anthropic is ethically concerned about use of autonomous weapons anywhere, and by surveillance by a country against its own citizens. Countries spy on each other a lot, but the ethical implications and risks of international spying are substantially different vs. a country acting against its own citizenry. Therefore, I think Anthropic's stance is A) ethically consistent, and B) not artificially constrained to the US (doesn't "end at the border"). There's room for disagreement and criticism, but I think this particular hyperbole is invalid.
- Forgeties79 7mo agoI’m just attempting to clarify what they said though I feel it was pretty clear to begin with.
- janalsncm 8mo agoI think the person you are replying to takes issue with the thing which you have simply asserted.
- mlyle 8mo agoWhich thing? Helping intelligence / international surveillance?
- charcircuit 8mo ago>That would be internationally. No other country should dictate what our military is or is not allowed to do. As they say all is fair in love and war, and if we want to break some international treaty that is our choice to do so. Both are based of domestic decisions of what should be allowed.
- brainwad 8mo agoWe are talking about US corporations deciding to/not to provide tech to the US government. That's completely orthogonal to your concern.
- allajfjwbwkwja 8mo agoThere's an obvious difference. Surveillance within the border is oppressive 1984-style surveillance state behavior. International spying is a universal tradition.