zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. kj99+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-02-14 12:30:41
> AI shouldn't be a part of warfare, IMHO.

Nor should nuclear weapons, guns, knives, or cudgels.

But we don’t have a way to stop them being used.

replies(2): >>foolof+Be >>fwip+yt
2. foolof+Be[view] [source] 2024-02-14 14:15:06
>>kj99+(OP)
This is literally the only thing that matters in this debate. Everything else is useless hand-wringing from people who don't want to be associated with the negative externalities of their work.

The second that this tech was developed it became literally impossible to stop this from happening. It was a totally foreseeable consequence, but the researchers involved didn't care because they wanted to be successful and figured they could just try to blame others for the consequences of their actions.

replies(1): >>qetern+ti
◧◩
3. qetern+ti[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 14:37:34
>>foolof+Be
> the researchers involved didn't care because they wanted to be successful and figured they could just try to blame others for the consequences of their actions

Such an absurdly reductive take. Or how about just like nuclear energy and knives, they are incredibly useful, society advancing tools that can also be used to cause harm. It's not as if AI can only be used for warfare. And like pretty much every technology, it ends up being used 99.9% for good, and 0.1% for evil.

replies(1): >>foolof+vk
◧◩◪
4. foolof+vk[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 14:47:34
>>qetern+ti
I think you're missing the point. I don't think we should have prevented the development of this tech. It's just absurd to complain about things that we always knew would happen as though they're some sort of great surprise.

If we cared about preventing LLMs from being used for violence, we would have poured more than a tiny fraction our resources into safety/alignment research. We did not. Ergo, we don't care, we just want people to think we care.

I don't have any real issue with using LLMs for military purposes. It was always going to happen.

replies(2): >>kelips+co >>kj99+CH
◧◩◪◨
5. kelips+co[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 15:05:47
>>foolof+vk
Safe or alignment research isn't going to stop it from being used for military purposes. Once the tech is out there, it will be used for military purposes; there's just no getting around it.
6. fwip+yt[view] [source] 2024-02-14 15:27:16
>>kj99+(OP)
Sure we do. We enforce it through the threat of warfare and subsequent prosecution, the same way we enforce the bans on chemical weapons and other war crimes.

We may lack the motivation and agreement to ban particular methods of warfare, but the means to enforce that ban exists, and drastically reduces their use.

replies(2): >>inglor+rD >>kj99+bH
◧◩
7. inglor+rD[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 16:06:01
>>fwip+yt
"We enforce it through the threat of warfare and subsequent prosecution, the same way we enforce the bans on chemical weapons and other war crimes."

Do we, though? Sometimes, against smaller misbehaving players. Note that it doesn't necessarily stop them (Iran, North Korea), even though it makes their international position somewhat complicated.

Against the big players (the US, Russia, China), "threat of warfare and prosecution" does not really work to enforce anything. Russia rains death on Ukrainian cities every night, or attempts to do so while being stopped by AA. Meanwhile, Russian oil and gas are still being traded, including in EU.

◧◩
8. kj99+bH[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 16:26:33
>>fwip+yt
We lack the motivation precisely because of information warfare that is already being used.
◧◩◪◨
9. kj99+CH[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 16:29:08
>>foolof+vk
You say ‘we’ as if everyone is the same. Some people care, some people don’t. It only takes a a few who don’t, or who feel the ends justify the means. Because those people exist, the people who do care are forced into a prisoners dilemma forcing them to develop the technology anyway.
[go to top]