Anthropic specifically are the people who talk about "model alignment" and "harmful outputs" the most, and whose models are by far the most heavily censored. This is all done on the basis that AI has a great potential to do harm.
One would think that this kind of outlook should logically lead to keeping this tech away from applications in which it would be literally making life or death decisions (see also: Israel's use of AI to compile target lists and to justify targeting civilian objects).
Why do you think humans would make better life or death decisions? Have we never had innocent civilians killed overseas by US military as a result of human error?
The problem with these things is that they allow humans to pretend that they are not responsible for those decisions, because "computer told me to do so". At the same time, the humans who are training those systems can also pretend to not be responsible because they are just making a thing that provides "suggestions" to humans making the ultimate decision.
With self-driving cars some human will be held responsible in case of the accident, I hope. Why would it be different here? It seems like a responsibility problem, not a technology one.
I'm not talking about matter of formal responsibility here, especially since the enforcing mechanisms for stuff like war crimes are very poor due to the lack of a single global authority capable of enforcing them (see the ongoing ICC saga). It's about whether people feel personally responsible. AI provides a way to diffuse and redirect this moral responsibility that might otherwise deter them.
I hear where you are coming from, but if an AI company is going to be in this field, wouldn't you want it to be the company with as many protections in place as possible to avoid misuse?
We aren't going to stop this march forward, no matter how much it is unpopular it will happen. So, which AI company would you prefer be involved with DOD?
"Avoid misuse"? This is the United States Military we're talking about here. They're directly involved in the ongoing genocide in Gaza at this very moment. There is no way to be ethically involved. Their entire existence is "misuse".
Do you really not know? It's a difficult question to answer in an HN thread, because on one hand, it requires a review of the history of empire and war profiteering. But on the other hand, it's just obvious to the point of being difficult to even articulate.
It's not unreasonable to take such a position, yes.
Look, if you believe that:
a) humanity is headed toward sustained peace
b) a transition from the current world order to a peaceful one is better done in an orderly and adult fashion
...then yes, at some point we all need to back away from participation in the legacy systems, right down to the drywall.
My observation, especially of the younger generations, is that belief in such a future is more common than it has ever been, and it's certainly one I hold.
Actions within that system may be unethical: certainly nobody is defending what America did to Cambodia, or countless other war crimes. But you're painting participation in the system as unethical. Therefore, Ukrainians defending their homeland are unethical.
Let me reframe what you said in terms of christianity:
----
If you believe that:
a) Jesus is our savior
b) The salvation of humanity depends on accepting (a)
...then yes, at some point everyone needs to back away from other religious systems, right down to atheism.
----
I'm not trying to make light of what you believe, but framing others' participation in a system you don't believe in as unethical is exactly what leads to oppression of religious minorities and other outsider groups. It's a tactic of religion, not reason.
If you live in US, taxes you pay directly fund DoD. So if you sponsor their activities, why can't Anthropic do business with them? Which other company would you rather get their (your) money?
Yes of course on some level, people who pay taxes to violent imperial actors are doing a disservice to humanity, and are in some sort of moral quandary.
We all wish that everyone who has ever lived in such a situation has had the bravery to resist. Right?
But I don't think that makes forbearance of such resistance equivalent to taking money from that same actor in exchange for expanding its capability. Those are related but distinct types of transaction.
This might makes sense if you believe US is an evil empire, DoD is doing bad things, and AI will help DoD do even worse things. But it's not so black and white, is it?
For large swaths of the population it is not. Moving is expensive, for one. Obtaining a citizenship elsewhere is non-trivial (and often also expensive). There are non-monetary costs as well, like having to leave your friends and extended family behind.
Taxes don't directly pay for military spending. If tax revenue, for whatever reason, dropped off a cliff, they'd continue giving money to the DoD, and just increase debt / money printing to cover the difference.
If there's not enough money from taxes, they will borrow/print more to cover total deficit (not specific to DoD). Otherwise, tax money will go directly to DoD.
Genuine question, and with due regard to some of the valid concerns you have: what would your opinion on this have been in 1940-1945? What about the Cold War?
Not everyone believes defense contracts are inherently unethical, or at least that they are any more unethical than all of the other consumers GenAI firms are already serving. Given that a (if not the) main business proposition for GenAI is massive reductions in employment costs (which means unemployment and massive economic disruption) this is not a business sector built on any ethical high ground.
