My confidence comes from the following:

1. There are good, ethical people working at these companies. If you were going to train on customer data that you had promised not to train on there would be plenty of potential whistleblowers.

2. The risk involved in training on customer data that you are contractually obliged not to train on is higher than the value you can get from that training data.

3. Every AI lab knows that the second it comes out that they trained on paying customer data saying they wouldn't, those paying customers will leave for their competitors (and sue them int the bargain.)

4. Customer data isn't actually that valuable for training! Great models come from carefully curated training data, not from just pasting in anything you can get your hands on.

Fundamentally I don't think AI labs are stupid, and training on paid customer data that they've agreed not to train on is a stupid thing to do.

> I am curious where your confidence that this is true, is coming from?

My confidence comes from working in big startups and big companies with legal teams. There's no way the entire company is going to gather all of the engineers and everyone around, have them code up a secret system to consume customer data into a secret part of the training set, and then have everyone involved keep quiet about it forever.

The whistleblowing and leaking would happen immediately. We've already seen LLM teams leak and and have people try to whistleblow over things that aren't even real, like the Google engineer who thought they had invented AGI a few years ago (lol). OpenAI had a public meltdown when the employees disagreed with Sam Altman's management style.

So my question to you is: What makes you think they would do this? How do you think they'd coordinate the teams to keep it all a secret and only hire people who would take this secret to their grave?

> I am curious where your confidence that this is true, is coming from?

We have a legal binding contract with Anthropic. Checked and vetted by our laywers, who are annoying because they actually READ the contracts and won't let us use services with suspicious clauses in them - unless we can make amendments.

If they're found to be in breach of said contract (which is what every paid user of Claude signs), Anthropic is going to be the target of SO FUCKING MANY lawsuits even the infinite money hack of AI won't save them.

> Besides lots of GPU's, training data seems the most valuable asset AI companies have. Sounds like strong incentive to me to secretly use it anyway. Who would really know, if the pipelines are set up in a way, if only very few people are aware of this?

Could be, but it's a huge risk the moment any lawsuit happens and the "discovery" process starts. Or whistleblowers.

They may well take that risk, they're clearly risk-takers. But it is a risk.

> I think its gross to distill military violence as defending 'assets [others] might want to annex'.

Yes, but that's how the world works:

Another country wants a bit of your country for some reason, they can take it by force unless you can make at the very least a credible threat against them, sometimes a lot more than that.

Note that this does not exclude that there has to be an aggressor somewhere. I'm not excluding the existence of aggressors, nor the capacity for the USA to be an aggressor. All I'm saying is your quotation is so vague as to also encompass those who are not.

> What US assets were being annexed when US AI was used to target Gazans?

First, I'm saying the statement is so broad as to encompass other things besides being a warmonger. Consider the opposite statement: "don't support our warfighters and don't maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries" would be absolutely insane, therefore "support our warfighters and maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries" says nothing.

Second, in this case the country doing the targeting is… Israel. To the extent that the USA cares at all, it's to get votes from the large number of Jewish people living in the USA. Similar deal with how it treats Cuba since the fall of the USSR: it's about votes (from Cuban exiles in that case, but still, votes).

Much as I agree that the conduct of Israel with regard to Gaza was disproportionate, exceeded the necessity, and likely was so bad as to even damage Israel's long-term strategic security, if you were to correctly imagine the people of Israel deciding "don't support our warfighters and don't maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries", they would quickly get victimised much harder than those they were victimising. That's the point there: the quote you cite as evidence, is so broad that everyone has approximately that, because not having it means facing ones' own destruction.

There's a mis-attributed quote, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf", that's where this is at.

> These two thoughts seem at conflict.

Musk is openly and directly saying "Canada is not a real country.", says "cis" is hate speech, response to pandemic was tweeting "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.", and self-justification for his trillion dollar bonus for hitting future targets is wanting to be in control of what he describes as a "robot army"; Trump openly and explicitly wants the USA to annex Canada, Greenland, Panama canal, is throwing around the national guard, openly calls critics traitors and calls for death penalty. They're a subtle as exploding volcanoes, nobody needs to take the worst case interpretations of what they're saying to notice this.

Saying "support our warfighters" is something done by basically every nation everywhere all the time, because those places that don't do this quickly get taken over by nearby nations who sense weakness. Which is kinda how the USA got Texas, because again, I'm not saying the USA is harmless, I'm saying the quote doesn't show that.

> What 'assets' were being protected from annexation here by this oppressive use of the tool? The chips?

This would have been a much better example to lead with than the military stuff.

I'm absolutely all on board with the general consensus that the US police are bastards in this specific way, have been since that kid got shot for having a toy gun in an open-carry state. (I am originally from a country where even the police are not routinely armed, I do not value the 2nd amendment, but if you're going to say "we allow open carry of firearms" you absolutely do not get to use "we saw someone carrying a firearm" as an excuse to shoot them).

However: using LLMs to code doesn't seem to be likely to make a difference either way for this. If I was writing a gun-detection AI, perhaps I'm out of date, but I'd use a simpler model that runs locally on-device and doesn't do anything else besides the sales pitch.

[dead]