419
The Pentagon’s Claude Use in Iran Is a Reminder that Anthropic Never Objected to Military Use (gizmodo.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 8 months ago (14 children)

My understanding is that it's not military use broadly that they object to but the use of their systems for the development of fully autonomous drones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    This is incorrect.

    Anthropic contradicts this, showing an aggressive willingness to work with the Trump department of "War."

    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... We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (13 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (12 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    You have a point, but perhaps try a softer tone next time. I think that would help your argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    That's your intrepretation - not a direct quote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    They're not ideologically against autonomous weapons systems.

    Exactly. Which should have you condemning their warmonger ambitions, if you had moral consistency.

    so that in the future these systems might become safe and trustworthy enough to use.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)