3 ms·
Sam eagerly pursued DoD contracts to weaponize AI. And then lobbied for legislation to ensure OpenAI cannot be held accountable if people are killed due to thei
by tailscaler2026 6mo ago
Sam eagerly pursued DoD contracts to weaponize AI. And then lobbied for legislation to ensure OpenAI cannot be held accountable if people are killed due to their systems.
- stickfigure 6mo agoThere's thirty-some-odd million people in Ukraine who very much would like to get AI weapons before the Russians do. They're coming whether you want them or not.
- pesus 6mo agoI find it interesting that Altman's fans seem to keep skipping past this fact. I'd love to hear their defense as to why one person potentially being responsible for hundreds or thousands of deaths is acceptable, but attacking that one person isn't. If violence is never the answer, they should be condemning Altman with even more vigor.
- AlexCoventry 6mo agoYeah, it's kind of terrifying, how this incident seems to have faded from people's memories.
- IMTDb 6mo ago> why one person potentially being responsible for hundreds or thousands of deaths is acceptable I am not sure who exactly is that one person ? Is it Altman, who is according to many people not that knowledgeable in AI in the first place; the scientist who found a breakthrough (who is it ?); is it the president of the United States who is greenlighting the strikes; the general who is choosing the target (based on AI suggestions); the missile designer; the manufacturer; the pilot who flew the plane ? I get the point of concentrating power in fewer hands, but the whole "all the problems of this world are caused by an extremely narrow set of individuals" always irks me. Going as far as saying there is just one is even mor ludicrous.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- maest 6mo agoAccountability sinks are good value and wealthy people always make sure they have enough of them
- idiotsecant 6mo agoAh the old 'everyone is responsible so nobody is responsible' canard. I will give you a helpful rule of thumb: when in doubt the guy with a bank account larger than the total lifetime income of hundreds of thousands of people is probably the one to blame.
- IMTDb 6mo agoAh the old ‘in case of doubt just go after the rich guy’. That makes stuff simple doesn’t it ? You can establish responsibilities just by counting the number of zeroes in a bank account. On top of this, it works for everything: the same dude is responsible for wars, the climate, world hunger, child cancer and your bathroom mirror being fogged this morning.
- roysting 6mo agoI’m fine with holding them all accountable to varying degrees. For example, yes, ultimately the president is responsible, but so is the person who dropped bombs instead of refusing an illegal order; just like the street dealer, gang banger, trafficker, and cartel boss are all guilty of all of their various crimes. What do you find difficult to understand about that?
- GMoromisato 6mo agoThe entire purpose of government is to have a monopoly on violence. Democracies give their government the power to decide when and against whom to deploy violence. There is a real difference between giving a democratic government the tools to kill people vs attempting to kill people yourself. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe in democracy.
- pesus 6mo agoI'm not sure the next batch of schoolgirls getting bombed will particularly care whether the choice was made "democratically" or not. I also won't particularly care about the distinction when AI is inevitably used to enact violence on the US population.
- GMoromisato 6mo agoAgreed--but so what? If you believe in democracy, you work within democratic means to enact your views. If you don't believe in democracy and use violence outside the system, then you are an enemy of democracy.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- mvc 6mo agoDid the suffragettes not believe in democracy?
- GMoromisato 6mo agoI don't know enough about the suffragettes, but didn't they get new laws passed to gain the right to vote? That sounds like working within democratic means. A better example is the Civil War. The southern states refused to accept the free and fair election of Lincoln and decided to secede, which was not allowed by the Constitution. Are you arguing that the Confederates were right to violate the law just because they believed they were right?
- seizethecheese 6mo agoMilitary power and attacks on private individuals are different things. It's perfectly consistent to be against attacks on private individuals while being in favor of building military weapons.
- luqtas 6mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- seizethecheese 6mo agoMight consider reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- luqtas 6mo agooh yes, sure! defending a guy who invest in war technology is perfectly fine under the guidelines /s
- deaux 6mo agoThe bombed schoolgirls were "private individuals" in any reasonable meaning of "private individual".
- seizethecheese 6mo agoMaybe I shouldn’t take the bait here… Yes, military power is evil, but it’s a necessary evil. A society that decides to stop making weapons is going to be subjugated by one that continues to make them. Full stop.
- deaux 6mo agoNothing about the US Department of War's actions over the last 2 years, whose contracts Sam eagerly pursued to weaponize AI, has had to do with "preventing being subjugated". What they did do was bomb 150 or so private individual school girls. You're saying the above is bait, when your own comment is nothing but it.