The company objected to hypothetical future use cases, not anything the military is currently doing.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/43768262

Some may have believed they were against AI being used for war. They just don’t want it to make the final kill decision.

The argument given by those supporting them is that AI in the military was inevitable, so their position is a reasonable one.

    • Iconoclast@feddit.ukEnglish
      151·
      1 day ago

      Here’s the full quote including the parts you conveniently left out.

      Even fully autonomous weapons (those that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets) may prove critical for our national defense. But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America’s warfighters and civilians at risk. We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems, but they have not accepted this offer.

      Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters—with our two requested safeguards in place.

      Source

      • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
        88·
        1 day ago

        You said Anthropic didn’t want to develop autonomous weapons. Anthropic contradicts you. They do want to develop them.

        Can you acknowledge this fact?

        I love how Anthropic only draws the line at autonomously killing Americans, too. I guess some lives are worth more than others.

          • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            31·
            9 hours ago

            They’re building tools to <cull people and children> from half way across the world and you’re worried about the tone?

          • Serinus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            31·
            23 hours ago

            It’s not a very solid point. They said they may become necessary at some point, but right now they’re irresponsible.

            They’re not ruling it out in the future, but their focus is on today’s problem.

            • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
              32·
              23 hours ago

              Serinus, did you see the part where Anthropic wants to develop them with the US military?

              • Iconoclast@feddit.ukEnglish
                1·
                3 hours ago

                with our two requested safeguards in place.

                Said safeguards being that their technology isn’t being used for mass surveillance or the development of autonomous drones. It’s explicitly mentioned in their statement - the one you’re desperately trying to massage and misquote to make it seem like they’re saying something they’re not - yet anyone can just go and read it themselves

                • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
                  1·
                  2 hours ago

                  Iconoclast, I see you edited your post after I replied. You did not answer whether you accept the fact that Anthropic explicitly wanted to develop fully autonomous AI alongside the Trump Department of “War.”

                  Either you’re lying, or you’re the one desperately trying to reshape the truth.

                • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
                  1·
                  3 hours ago

                  Iconoclast, you have moved beyond accidental deception into intentional lies.

                  Anthropic offered to work directly with the Department of “War” on R&D to improve the reliability of autonomous bombing systems.

                  That’s what your link says. Do you deny this explicit fact?