Hacker News Reader

Comment by huijzer | Hacker News Reader

I'm probably gonna get downvoted for this, but I find allowing the technology to be used for all kinds of different things more "open" than arbitrary restrictions. Yes, even "military and warfare" are pretty arbitrary terms because defensive systems or certain questionnaire research, for instance, could be considered "military and warfare".

View on HN

Like our PhD project for example, we're doing machine learning on special forces selection in the Netherlands (for details, see [1]). The aim is basically just to reduce costs for the military and disappointment for the recruits. Furthermore, we hope to learn more about how very capable individuals can be detected early. This is a topic that is useful for many more situations than just the military.

[1]: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/s6j3r

> we hope to learn more about how very capable individuals can be detected early

Following which, you will need to learn how to defend against all the internal threats to any such system. ^_^

Your research will be assimilated by the Killbot Evolution Research Program. Your country thanks you.

For your service, here is a limited edition digital flag pin emoji:

> This is a topic that is useful for many more situations than just the military.

Fair enough, but that's not who funded your research (according to your own disclosure, the military paid for it).

If this topic is so useful for "more situations" , why didn't those "many more situations" fund it? Will you be conducting research into how this topic will have non-military usages, or is that just something you tell yourself to sleep better at night while the military pays for more research that "is useful for many more situations than just the military"?

Most modern technology is derived from military research.

Do you feel bad every time you use a microwave? It was originally a military radar. Without military funding, it would not exist in its modern form. Nor would basically all radio communication technologies, satellites, spaceflight. You get the idea.

yeah, I feel terrible about it. We as a species apparently cant punch a dent in a pack of butter unless it is for greed or murder. We chose to be like that. Seriously, wtf???

I would prefer it if we developed competitive qualities. Trying to stop doesn't make sense, we have to outgrow it.

Isn't that how the Internet was invented?

>>>...we hope to learn more about how very capable individuals can be detected early

The new "Gifted And Talented Education" GATE for the modern era.**

We were evaluated for GATE in like 4th grade? Using such AI human behavioral heuristics against the minor population in 3.2.1.... Contract.

>>>...we hope to learn more about how very capable individuals can be detected early

So they can be sidelined before they have a chance to disrupt anything.

Especially those individuals having any unique abilities in excess of what AI could substitute for.

How difficult would it be to repurpose the kinds of models you are working on to, instead, say, perform early detection and selection of problem people for internment/liquidation?

I have talked a lot with military people and actually have much confidence in their morals. Yes they will make many mistakes but in general there are lots of checks and balances and they‘re not evil people. Also note that they are ran by the government which makes them very risk averse.

In general, all technology can be reused. Maybe someday killer robots walk around with a Rust codebase. Should Rust not have been developed?

You talked with generals and ministers of defense? During a crisis, as opposed to boring peacetime, when everyone can claim to make moral decisions, without having to actually be tested?

Your current government may be risk averse, the one that gets elected five, or fifteen years from now, in a different climate...

Your comparison between this work and Rust is not a good one. There's degrees of potential for abuse, and a system that predicts people's future behaviour in the hands of the military is nothing like a general-purpose language.

GattAIca here we come, baby!

I'm going to keep this vague to keep some anonymity, but where I work our product is used by a group that falls under one branches of at least one military and we have a team that is working on a new feature that uses ChatGPT under the hood, but the feature is completely innocuous.

The best comparison I can give would be if we were talking about health care and our product was used to schedule nurses shifts or book operating rooms.

It's only arbitrary if you make it arbitrary. A strict ban on "military and warfare," may prevent some relatively innocuous projects from reaching fruition, but I find that to be an insignificantly small & significantly worthwhile cost to pay considering the flip side.

I understand the idealism, but the realistic alternative is that the US government abstains while other governments use the technology freely. Not sure how that's a better scenario, in a practical sense.

It's probably why OpenAI decided to remove the restriction.

It's kind of wild that you can't get it to do anything PG-13 for "safety" but it's going to be used in military technology. I have no value judgement on the decision, but it seems incongruent with their mission.

Also, for a company that proved it has no governance, I'm surprised they didn't quietly do it anyway and wait until it was discovered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com