3 ms·
Is nobody else unsettled by the example? Strange timing to talk about calculating trajectories on long range projectiles?
by jpgreenall 7mo ago
Is nobody else unsettled by the example? Strange timing to talk about calculating trajectories on long range projectiles?
- teraflop 7mo agoUnsettling, yes, but not strange at all. Given that OpenAI is working with and doing business with the US military, it makes perfect sense that they would try to normalize militaristic usage of their technologies. Everybody already knows they're doing it, so now they just need to keep talking about it as something increasingly normal. Promoting usages that are only sort of military is a way of soft-pedaling this change. If something is banal enough to be used as an ordinary example in a press release, then obviously anybody opposed to it must be an out-of-touch weirdo, right?
- jpgreenall 7mo agoInteresting take. Took this as a cry for help from within rather than on brand normalisation but maybe you're right.
- jonas21 7mo agoIt's basic physics, the sort of example you might find in a high school textbook.
- jpgreenall 7mo agoSure. But do we think the topic was chosen at random?
- BeetleB 7mo agoWhen primed, people will see things that aren't there.
- Imustaskforhelp 7mo agobut sometimes, people do see things behind the curtain. The timing of talking about this topic does feel pretty strange I'd say as well as the GP comment noted?
- BeetleB 7mo agoMy point is: You're never going to know if this is a coincidence or not. And even if it was intentional, it's of little consequence.
- sumeno 7mo agoand it's someone's job to think of that connection before publishing the release and they failed
- marssaxman 7mo agoThe connection is a ghostly wisp, archery not having been relevant to warfare since the late 19th century.
- jstummbillig 7mo agoNo, and it's also not a conspiracy.
- jonas21 7mo agoNo, it wasn't chosen at random -- it had to be a question that any reasonable person would immediately recognize as harmless, but where the old model would inject a bunch of safety caveats and the new model would not.
- messe 7mo ago> that any reasonable person In short supply on that side of the Atlantic these days it seems.
- embedding-shape 7mo agoI took it to be a homage to early computing and programming which was a lot about calculating trajectories fast enough. But considering current circumstances, not sure how right my initial interpretation was.
- spiderice 7mo agoNo. Didn't cross my mind at all. Now that you point it out, I still don't care.
- marssaxman 7mo agoWhat better example would you suggest for a demonstration of an actually-harmless question which sits close enough to the guardrails that the previous model would have stuttered over it?
- chromatin 7mo agoNo, not at all. My unqualified internet diagnosis is that you may have high anxiety.