5 ms·

""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national

""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m proud of what we built together. """ - Caitlin Kalinowski, previously head of robotics at OpenAI https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ckalinowski_i-resigned-from-openai-i-care-deeply-about-activity-7436085772488843264-tjuI/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ckalinowski_i-resigned-from-o...

IshKebab 7mo ago
[flagged]
- encomiast 7mo ago
  It's you.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- Muhammad523 7mo ago
  This person simply does not want to be involved in making autonomous killing machines. What does that have to do with trans?
- bigyabai 7mo ago
  Are you keeping your own absolutist assumptions in-check?
- roromainmain 7mo ago
  I’m not sure it makes much sense to call this naive. When the issue is a moral one, conflicts like this are almost inevitable. Ethical convictions often collide with political or institutional decisions. If a company decides to work with the military and someone finds that fundamentally incompatible with their values, stepping away may simply be the only coherent option for them. It’s sometimes just moral consistency. Moral inconsistency can create deep inner conflict and real psychological distress. This being said, many queer people (not only trans people) seem to develop particularly inclusive values, perhaps because they have personally experienced the consequences of harassment, exclusion, or violence. Having gone through that kind of experience can make someone more sensitive to the vulnerability of others.
- aqua_coder 7mo ago
  what the hell are you talking about ?
- sigmar 7mo ago
  putting aside the obvious gender-based prejudice in this comment- since when did the view that "humans should be in the loop before murderbots target and kill someone" become a "naive moral absolutist view of the world"? we're resigned to building the terminator now?
  - IshKebab 7mo ago
    Yes, it's clearly inevitable. The advantages are too great, and the disadvantages too small. We can't even avoid using weapons where the equation is much more "this is really awful" like cluster bombs and flamethrowers. You might be a bit behind the times too. There are already plenty of weapons platforms that kill without a human in the loop. I believe the first widely known one was South Korea's sentry gun but that was 10 years ago.
sheepscreek 7mo ago
I 100% understand and agree the AI community argument around lethal autonomy. But I am trying to understand this from the perspective of defence & govt. Why is it so business as usual for them? Do they consider this at par with missiles with infra-red/heat sensors for tracking/locking? Where does the definition of lethal autonomy begin and end? Just putting this out there as a point to ponder on. By itself, this may rightly be too broad and should be debated.
- bigyabai 7mo ago
  For surveillance at least, multimodal AI is old hat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysi... If you're one of the contractors working in NRO or aware of Sentient, OpenAI and Anthropic probably do look like supply chain risks. They want to subsume the work you're already doing with more extreme limitations (ones that might already be violated). So now you're pitching backup service providers, analyzing the cost of on-prem, and pricing out your own model training; it would be really convenient if OpenAI just agreed to terms. As a contractor, you can make them an offer so good that it would be career suicide to refuse it. Autonomous weapons are a horse of a different color, but it's safe to assume the same discussions are happening inside Anduril et. al.
- lich_king 7mo ago
  My most straightforward read is that the military simply doesn't want their contractors to have a say in the war doctrine. Raytheon doesn't get to say "you can only bomb the countries we like, and no hitting hospitals or schools". It doesn't necessarily mean the Pentagon wants to bomb hospitals, but they also don't want to lose autonomy. A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap". I'm frankly less concerned about "proper" military uses than I am about the tech bleeding into the sphere of domestic law enforcement, as it inevitably will.
  - remarkEon 7mo ago
    >A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap". What's the reason this is less charitable, exactly? Do we think this isn't true, or that we think it's immoral to build the Terminator even if China/Russia already have them?
hirvi74 7mo ago
> This was about principle, not people. Why do I not believe this at all? Were things truly sunshine and roses at OpenAI up until this Pentagon debacle? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed like the writing was on the wall years ago. > I have deep respect for Sam and the team I have even more questions now.
- lucianbr 7mo ago
  How can you respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money? Not to mention that the principles are not being betrayed now for the first time.
  - hirvi74 7mo ago
    > respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money? That is one of my many questions too. I am not certain I believe her either. People predicted AI would be used in such nefarious manners way before AI even existed. Something about the whole resignation and immediate social media post seems more like an attention grab than anything else to me. Whatever her prerogative is, I still believe she is still partially culpable for anything that becomes of this technology -- good or bad.
  - Lerc 7mo ago
    You could believe it is not about money. Most importantly, this seems to rest more on if you believe the principle was being followed or not. It is possible to believe one thing, have another person believe another thing, and respect that their decision is sincerely held but subject to a different perspective, as is our own beliefs. You can stand up for what you believe and still respectfully disagree with someone with a different stance. The problem is when you decide that reality always conforms to you opinion. If you assume the other person is aware of that reality and decides differently than it becomes a betrayal of principles. Assuming to know the internal state of another's mind to declare that it is for money becomes disrespectfully presumptuous. Your problem is not in understanding how X can occur if Y. It is assuming that everyone agrees with you on Y. You might be right about Y, you might be wrong. Even if you are right, it is still possible that Y is a belief a rational person can hold if their perspective has been different,
ronnier 7mo ago
Do Chinese do this in China? Walk away from companies that will be used for war? I doesn’t seem to be prevalent and instead they try to take every advantage they can to push their country, China, to become the most dominate in the world. They must be elated to watch the world’s premier tech companies protest the American government and refusal to work with them. If I wanted China to be weaker I’d hope that Chinese companies protested and refused to work with the Chinese government.
- tkz1312 7mo ago
  You have used chatgpt presumably. Based on your interactions with it, do you seriously think it should be allowed to shoot a gun without any human oversight?
  - ronnier 7mo ago
    That simplistic question is not how things will work. I guess we’ll just get shot by Chinese AI, they will not stop.
    - esafak 7mo ago
      You'd rather get shot by domestic bots first?
      - ronnier 7mo ago
        We have nukes, missiles, bombs, all capable of mass widespread death. Should we give those up too and just let adversaries be the only ones in possession of these types of weapons?
        esafak 7mo ago
        Autonomous robots are one of the adversaries. They're their own side.
- user3939382 7mo ago

IshKebab 7mo ago

[flagged]

encomiast 7mo ago
It's you.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
Muhammad523 7mo ago
This person simply does not want to be involved in making autonomous killing machines. What does that have to do with trans?
bigyabai 7mo ago
Are you keeping your own absolutist assumptions in-check?
roromainmain 7mo ago
I’m not sure it makes much sense to call this naive. When the issue is a moral one, conflicts like this are almost inevitable. Ethical convictions often collide with political or institutional decisions. If a company decides to work with the military and someone finds that fundamentally incompatible with their values, stepping away may simply be the only coherent option for them. It’s sometimes just moral consistency. Moral inconsistency can create deep inner conflict and real psychological distress. This being said, many queer people (not only trans people) seem to develop particularly inclusive values, perhaps because they have personally experienced the consequences of harassment, exclusion, or violence. Having gone through that kind of experience can make someone more sensitive to the vulnerability of others.
aqua_coder 7mo ago
what the hell are you talking about ?
sigmar 7mo ago
putting aside the obvious gender-based prejudice in this comment- since when did the view that "humans should be in the loop before murderbots target and kill someone" become a "naive moral absolutist view of the world"? we're resigned to building the terminator now?
- IshKebab 7mo ago
  Yes, it's clearly inevitable. The advantages are too great, and the disadvantages too small. We can't even avoid using weapons where the equation is much more "this is really awful" like cluster bombs and flamethrowers. You might be a bit behind the times too. There are already plenty of weapons platforms that kill without a human in the loop. I believe the first widely known one was South Korea's sentry gun but that was 10 years ago.

sheepscreek 7mo ago

I 100% understand and agree the AI community argument around lethal autonomy. But I am trying to understand this from the perspective of defence & govt. Why is it so business as usual for them? Do they consider this at par with missiles with infra-red/heat sensors for tracking/locking? Where does the definition of lethal autonomy begin and end? Just putting this out there as a point to ponder on. By itself, this may rightly be too broad and should be debated.

bigyabai 7mo ago
For surveillance at least, multimodal AI is old hat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_(intelligence_analysi... If you're one of the contractors working in NRO or aware of Sentient, OpenAI and Anthropic probably do look like supply chain risks. They want to subsume the work you're already doing with more extreme limitations (ones that might already be violated). So now you're pitching backup service providers, analyzing the cost of on-prem, and pricing out your own model training; it would be really convenient if OpenAI just agreed to terms. As a contractor, you can make them an offer so good that it would be career suicide to refuse it. Autonomous weapons are a horse of a different color, but it's safe to assume the same discussions are happening inside Anduril et. al.
lich_king 7mo ago
My most straightforward read is that the military simply doesn't want their contractors to have a say in the war doctrine. Raytheon doesn't get to say "you can only bomb the countries we like, and no hitting hospitals or schools". It doesn't necessarily mean the Pentagon wants to bomb hospitals, but they also don't want to lose autonomy. A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap". I'm frankly less concerned about "proper" military uses than I am about the tech bleeding into the sphere of domestic law enforcement, as it inevitably will.
- remarkEon 7mo ago
  >A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap". What's the reason this is less charitable, exactly? Do we think this isn't true, or that we think it's immoral to build the Terminator even if China/Russia already have them?

hirvi74 7mo ago

> This was about principle, not people. Why do I not believe this at all? Were things truly sunshine and roses at OpenAI up until this Pentagon debacle? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed like the writing was on the wall years ago. > I have deep respect for Sam and the team I have even more questions now.

lucianbr 7mo ago
How can you respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money? Not to mention that the principles are not being betrayed now for the first time.
- hirvi74 7mo ago
  > respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money? That is one of my many questions too. I am not certain I believe her either. People predicted AI would be used in such nefarious manners way before AI even existed. Something about the whole resignation and immediate social media post seems more like an attention grab than anything else to me. Whatever her prerogative is, I still believe she is still partially culpable for anything that becomes of this technology -- good or bad.
- Lerc 7mo ago
  You could believe it is not about money. Most importantly, this seems to rest more on if you believe the principle was being followed or not. It is possible to believe one thing, have another person believe another thing, and respect that their decision is sincerely held but subject to a different perspective, as is our own beliefs. You can stand up for what you believe and still respectfully disagree with someone with a different stance. The problem is when you decide that reality always conforms to you opinion. If you assume the other person is aware of that reality and decides differently than it becomes a betrayal of principles. Assuming to know the internal state of another's mind to declare that it is for money becomes disrespectfully presumptuous. Your problem is not in understanding how X can occur if Y. It is assuming that everyone agrees with you on Y. You might be right about Y, you might be wrong. Even if you are right, it is still possible that Y is a belief a rational person can hold if their perspective has been different,

ronnier 7mo ago

Do Chinese do this in China? Walk away from companies that will be used for war? I doesn’t seem to be prevalent and instead they try to take every advantage they can to push their country, China, to become the most dominate in the world. They must be elated to watch the world’s premier tech companies protest the American government and refusal to work with them. If I wanted China to be weaker I’d hope that Chinese companies protested and refused to work with the Chinese government.

tkz1312 7mo ago
You have used chatgpt presumably. Based on your interactions with it, do you seriously think it should be allowed to shoot a gun without any human oversight?
- ronnier 7mo ago
  That simplistic question is not how things will work. I guess we’ll just get shot by Chinese AI, they will not stop.
  - esafak 7mo ago
    You'd rather get shot by domestic bots first?
    - ronnier 7mo ago
      We have nukes, missiles, bombs, all capable of mass widespread death. Should we give those up too and just let adversaries be the only ones in possession of these types of weapons?
      - esafak 7mo ago
        Autonomous robots are one of the adversaries. They're their own side.
user3939382 7mo ago