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.
That’s your intrepretation - not a direct quote.
Iconoclast, don’t be disingenuous.
The direct quote is “We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems”. “We” meaning Anthropic. “These systems” meaning fully autonomous weapons.
Do you acknowledge they did this? Try not to weasel out of answering with more pedantry. It’s almost as disturbing as your apparent defense of that Silicon Valley AI cult.
They are not willing to let their current models (Claude) be used in fully autonomous weapons right now, because they believe today’s frontier AI is still too unreliable and prone to errors. They explicitly say they “will not knowingly provide a product that puts America’s warfighters and civilians at risk.”
However, they have offered to work directly with the Department of Defense on R&D to improve the reliability of autonomous weapons technology in general (with our two requested safeguards in place) - so that in the future these systems might become safe and trustworthy enough to use.
They’re not ideologically against autonomous weapons systems. They’re against ones that run on our current AI models.
Exactly. Which should have you condemning their warmonger ambitions, if you had moral consistency.
Which becomes true to them as soon as it doesn’t kill Americans.
It’s okay, you can just say you endorse America building autonomous weapons to wipe out people of any nationality. You can acknowledge that doing this is a Green Line according to Warmonger Dario Amodei. I support you coming out of that closet.