OpenAI appoints Retired U.S. Army General Paul M. Nakasone to Board
openai.com
openai.com
Or conceivably his experience is genuinely relevant and unrelated to US national security going forward, completely unrelated to the governmental apparatus and not a sign of the times.
[1] situational-awareness.ai
It's gonna be wild to see what secret needles come out of that haystack.
Whenever that day happens (or happened) it will represent a massive shift in global power. It is on par with the Manhattan project in terms of scope and consequences.
Soon if not already they can just ask questions about people now.
"Has this person ever done anything illegal?"
Then the tools comb through a lifetime of communications intercepts looking for that answer.
It's like the ultimate dirt finder, but without the outsized manual human effort required to ensure that it's largely only abused against people of prominence.
They won't even need to rely on people using ChatGPT for that if things like Microsoft's "Recall" is rolled out and enabled by default. People who aren't privacy conscious will not disable it or care.
He was the director of the NSA AND head of United States Cyber Command from 2018 until his retirement in Feb 2024 - so very recent!
> ... our leaders confront the classic dilemma of statecraft identified by Henry Kissinger: “When your scope for action is greatest, the knowledge on which you can base this action is always at a minimum. When your knowledge is greatest, the scope for action has often disappeared.” ... AI systems will also be used in the pursuit of power. We fear AI tools will be weapons of first resort in future conflicts. AI will not stay in the domain of superpowers or the realm of science fiction. AI is dual-use, often open-source, and diffusing rapidly.
"The Israeli tank commander who has fought in one of the Syrian wars is the best engineering executive in the world. The tank commanders are operationally the best, and are extremely detail oriented. This is based on twenty years of experience working with them and observing them." —Eric Schmidt.
Start-up Nation by Singer et al (p. 41).Schmidt is talking about combatants. Thankfully for you, you haven't crossed any psychopathic murderous fascists.
Very typical move of a company planning to enter the military supplier space.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/12/ai-and-mass-s...
Technology moves a very long way in 15 years. The only markets this might be true is for specialized military equipment where there is no consumer market other than aftermarket military goods.
Antenna design.
My employer is building specialized antennas for the military that, once the research, design, and infrastructure has been paid for and put into place by the department of defense, will filter down into enterprise applications and then finally consumer goods.
Dynamic metasurfaces, dynamic polarizations, and dynamic multiband rx/tx for antennas are all coming, eventually, to smartphones. Just got to get them a little smaller and a lot cheaper, but that's coming.
All paid for by AFRL, DARPA, and NRL grants.
I don't work in the field. I would never tempt insanity by working in RF. I just reap the ESPP benefits from my employer raking in the cash by licensing out its tech to various OEMs.
Particularly because if a superintelligence is actually created, it won't matter who did it. It won't be the servant of the creators.
How can you so confidently assert that? AI just needs to beat humans at AI research to start compounding it's growth in performance.
>It won't be the servant of the creators
Human's are very paranoid and competitive because we've had to be for tens of thousands of generations to survive. Super intelligent or not why would AI start ignoring instructions or develop a survival instinct? This line of thinking has been popular in science fiction but what is it based on? Just because something is smarter than us, it will kill us, as Eliezer Yudkowsky asserted "because it wants our atoms"? It seems like we are viewing AI through a human lens.
Superintelligence under human control is what scares the shit out of me. I see superintelligence as the only thing capable of saving humans from themselves.
Because I've seen no strong reason to think otherwise. However, everyone -- myself included -- is just guessing here. I could certainly be wrong. As could the ones of the opposite opinion.
> AI just needs to beat humans at AI research to start compounding it's growth in performance.
That's assuming that it's possible to create an AGI at all given our current direction. I seriously doubt that it is. Time will tell, though.
Should I repeat the common quote of the problem in this world is....
There is not actually consensus about this amongst the experts in the field.
Sources: h-index of AI rankings LLM rankings
Everyone can look them up and what their stance is.
Not that I trust governments trying to oversee them either...
Inconceivable
... Good. Everything's so good.
I thought that my finding was coincidental, sample size of 1 and pure bias. Maybe it isn't, maybe it really got much better.
The safety system in place prevented it from answering a lot of questions around defense.
I thought it was an interesting example of a safety system causing societal collapse for a sci fi soon to be reality.