Pentagon deal sparks protest outside of OpenAI HQ in San Francisco

[ding]

You ain’t wrong.

So more government surveillance is a good thing?

 

[Anomalism]

So more government surveillance is a good thing?

What about artificial intelligence that can decide on its own when to kill people?

Is this not a horrifying precedent?

 

[BackAgain]

I gave you 20 links. Stop trolling, asshole.

No. You didn’t give me any link as to how you claim that the contract provision was for surveillance on Americans.

And asking these questions and seeking factual support isn’t trolling.

That’s just you being petty.

 

[Anomalism]

No. You didn’t give me any link as to how you claim that the contract provision was for surveillance on Americans.

And asking these questions and seeking factual support isn’t trolling.

That’s just you being petty.

It's covered in the information I provided. You don't want information. You're an ideologue that has already made up their mind, obviously.

 

[ding]

Was it specifically about mass surveillance of Americans?

My understanding of Anthropic's concern was they objected to removing safeguards on surveillance.

 

[ding]

What about artificial intelligence that can decide on its own when to kill people?

Is this not a horrifying precedent?

Is that even a thing? That's the first I've heard about that. But let's assume it is. If so, that's a BFI. Bad ******* idea.

 

[Anomalism]

My understanding of Anthropic's concern was they objected to removing safeguards on surveillance.

The government's position was that they wanted unlimited access as long as it met their own definition of legal. This is the same government that already got caught spying on Americans.

They refused to rule out mass surveillance of Americans and autonomous weapon systems.

 

[Anomalism]

Is that even a thing? That's the first I've heard about that. But let's assume it is. If so, that's a BFI. Bad ******* idea.

It's getting to that point. They want access to those options. That's documented. I'm sure you know the military is ahead of the public's perception when it comes to technology. This is real. This is an important moment in AI development and way too few people are noticing.

 

[ding]

The government's position was that they wanted unlimited access as long as it met their own definition of legal. This is the same government that already got caught spying on Americans.

They refused to rule out mass surveillance of Americans and autonomous weapon systems.

I think they are a lot closer to making AI surveillance a reality than they are to making killer robots a reality.

 

[Doc7505]

Yes.

<~~~~~~~~~~>​

You forget programing rules for robots. --- Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, introduced in his 1942 story "Runaround" are a fictional ethical code designed to govern robot behavior:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given by humans, except where such orders conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence, provided such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

Later, Asimov introduced a superior Zeroth Law, placing the safety of humanity above that of individual humans.
Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm" taking precedence over all others.
These laws are difficult to implement in real AI because they are hard to define and often conflict, such as in "trolley problem" scenarios. Defining "harm" is subjective, and the strict rules are too rigid for modern autonomous systems, which often require calculating risk. Instead, modern AI ethics focus on transparency, accountability, and safety.
Since the problem of transparency is lacking in the ideology of Democrats and DSA Marxist Socialists, therein lies the problem.
China’s recent robotics and AI advances do not strictly follow Isaac Asimov’s classic Three Laws of Robotics, but instead adopt adapted guidelines focused on state-approved social values, security, and safety. While not direct copies, China’s 2024 guidelines for humanoid robots reflect similar principles, such as not harming humans.

 

[Anomalism]

I think they are a lot closer to making AI surveillance a reality than they are to making killer robots a reality.

Imagine general weapons systems run by AI. Missile batteries, etc.

The government is trying to create this technology RIGHT NOW.

That's why this whole thing happened.

The Terminator is down stream of these precedents. We are making the exact mistakes we need to not make, and partisans are too ignorant and caught up in politics to care.

 

[Anomalism]

A robot may not injure a human being

The government disagrees.

 

[ding]

Imagine general weapons systems run by AI. Missile batteries, etc.

The government is trying to create this technology RIGHT NOW.

That's why this whole thing happened.

The Terminator is down stream of these precedents. We are making the exact mistakes we need to not make, and partisans are too ignorant and caught up in politics to care.

Sure, military applications for control systems, not really killer robots. We have safeguards for such systems now. It would be dumb to not have them in the future.

 

[Anomalism]

Sure, military applications for control systems, not really killer robots. We have safeguards for such systems now. It would be dumb to not have them in the future.

These are dangerous precedents to toy with.

 

[BackAgain]

So more government surveillance is a good thing?

Sometimes. Under the right circumstances.

But, then again, in general terms, let’s acknowledge that I neither suggested or said anything along the lines of what you asked.

But I stand by the exception in my above 1st sentence.

 

[ding]

Sometimes. Under the right circumstances.

But, then again, in general terms, let’s acknowledge that I neither suggested or said anything along the lines of what you asked.

But I stand by the exception in my above 1st sentence.

Ok, I never said you did. I asked the question. And no, I don't think under any conditions we should have that technology deployed. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back into the bottle.

 

[Captain Caveman]

You got your links. A lot of them.

The government wants AI companies to not restrict them from using their technology for mass surveillance of Americans and the creation of AI that can autonomously kill people.

It's destiny, it will happen because the human race is stupid. As long as it doesn't happen within 20 to 25 years, that'll do me. Stephen Hawking warned against this crazy AI/Robot malarkey.

There are a lot of old farts on this board, hence the sarky replies you've been getting. The Pentagon will carry on with their agenda, with or without protests.

 

[Anomalism]

It's destiny, it will happen because the human race is stupid.

I'm not ready to accept that.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'm not ready to accept that.

And that choice is good for you.

 

[BackAgain]

It's covered in the information I provided. You don't want information. You're an ideologue that has already made up their mind, obviously.

So, if you’ve already supplies a link that shows that the contract provision was for Americans, it doesn’t seem unfair to ask “which one?”

Or, instead of running away, maybe you could find your nadz and just answer the question.

And for “making up my mind,” you’re wrong. I’m asking questions to determine if you’re making some sense or none.