After Anthropic refused flat out to agree to apply Claude AI to autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of American citizens, OpenAI jumps right into bed with the United States Department of War.
This honestly strikes me as a story people don’t understand. Mass surveillance is not lawful and the government thus agreed not to do that. However, they still needed the guardrails removed. People interpret this as them wanting mass surveillance, but that’s not necessarily true.
I work for a company that uses AI for legal work, processing and analyzing court cases, discovery documents, etc. We had problems with AI models like Gemini and GPT refusing to do what we needed because of guardrails against violence and abuse of minors. It refused to discuss and analyze cases that involved murders described in detail, or cases involving child molestation, etc. We weren’t using it for unlawful purposes, very much the opposite.
I feel like if people knew that we, like the DoD, had to use uncensored models that allowed such things, people would complain “Wow, you guys are trying to remove guardrails for child expoitation and violence! How terrible!”
Is it so shocking that a military needs their AI to work with such things even if they’re not implementing it? They cannot afford to have AI in critical moments be like “sorry, my guidelines say I can’t help with this.”
This seems like the time Trump advised against pregnant women against using Tylenol. So people started buying and using it in protest. This is yet another reaction to Trump punishing them, but people are pretending Anthropic is making a stand for the people and OpenAI is somehow not. It’s not that simple. Though now Anthropic is eating it up, especially after this last week when they started pissing on the entire tech community that started hating on them.
The military, the department of government responsible for mass murder, should not have any fucking AI in their system, absolutely anywhere. Doubly so without any sort of guardrails.
There are bad actors in government. People working those cases like the ones you did have way more integrity than the bad faith actors in the DoD. There are bad faith actors in governments breaking the law every day.
Shame on you and your company for introducing AI at all into such sensitive matters. This issue is not just about security and privacy but about outsourcing human judgement when human life is on the line.
My company has facilitated the filings of hundreds of litigants representing themselves who cannot afford lawyers, helped swamped public defenders with more cases than they could ever hope to defend without just making plea deals.
Meanwhile you probably sit around complaining about prison industrial complex and corrupt justice system. Doing nothing. Taking a moral high ground while being utterly worthless.
“Mass surveillance is not lawful and the government thus agreed not to do that.” Which is to say- the government will not do something if it is illegal.
The greater good of the work that the Department of Defense needs to do may justify infringement of some individual liberties.
The Department of Defense is run by lawful actors who can be trusted to make lawful decisions based on their own discretion.
This honestly strikes me as a story people don’t understand. Mass surveillance is not lawful and the government thus agreed not to do that. However, they still needed the guardrails removed. People interpret this as them wanting mass surveillance, but that’s not necessarily true.
I work for a company that uses AI for legal work, processing and analyzing court cases, discovery documents, etc. We had problems with AI models like Gemini and GPT refusing to do what we needed because of guardrails against violence and abuse of minors. It refused to discuss and analyze cases that involved murders described in detail, or cases involving child molestation, etc. We weren’t using it for unlawful purposes, very much the opposite.
I feel like if people knew that we, like the DoD, had to use uncensored models that allowed such things, people would complain “Wow, you guys are trying to remove guardrails for child expoitation and violence! How terrible!”
Is it so shocking that a military needs their AI to work with such things even if they’re not implementing it? They cannot afford to have AI in critical moments be like “sorry, my guidelines say I can’t help with this.”
This seems like the time Trump advised against pregnant women against using Tylenol. So people started buying and using it in protest. This is yet another reaction to Trump punishing them, but people are pretending Anthropic is making a stand for the people and OpenAI is somehow not. It’s not that simple. Though now Anthropic is eating it up, especially after this last week when they started pissing on the entire tech community that started hating on them.
The military, the department of government responsible for mass murder, should not have any fucking AI in their system, absolutely anywhere. Doubly so without any sort of guardrails.
Why? I can’t think of any reason that would not also preclude their usage if all computer assisted tools.
Because no other computer assisted tools are straight up fucking wrong half the time?
There are bad actors in government. People working those cases like the ones you did have way more integrity than the bad faith actors in the DoD. There are bad faith actors in governments breaking the law every day.
Shame on you and your company for introducing AI at all into such sensitive matters. This issue is not just about security and privacy but about outsourcing human judgement when human life is on the line.
Wait. You still trust human judgment that much?
My company has facilitated the filings of hundreds of litigants representing themselves who cannot afford lawyers, helped swamped public defenders with more cases than they could ever hope to defend without just making plea deals.
Meanwhile you probably sit around complaining about prison industrial complex and corrupt justice system. Doing nothing. Taking a moral high ground while being utterly worthless.
Platitudes aren’t helping anyone.
It sounds like the assertions here are:
“Mass surveillance is not lawful and the government thus agreed not to do that.” Which is to say- the government will not do something if it is illegal.
The greater good of the work that the Department of Defense needs to do may justify infringement of some individual liberties.
The Department of Defense is run by lawful actors who can be trusted to make lawful decisions based on their own discretion.
Is this right?