> Concretely if you try to vibe-target your ICBMs Claude is hopefully telling you that that's a bad idea.

On the non-nuclear battlefield, I expect that the goverment wants Claude to green-light attacks on targets that may actually be non-combatants. Such targets might be military but with a risk of being civilian, or they could be civilians that the government wants to target but can't legally attack.

Humans in the loop would get court-martialed or accused of war crimes for making such targeting calls. But by delegating to AI, the government gets to achieve their policy goals while avoiding having any humans be held accountable for them.

▲

Cider9986 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I used to not be big on conspiracy theories. But I'm going to give this a shot because many of the old ones turned out to be true.

	▲	rectang 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't see this as a "conspiracy". Here's an example of how it would be applied: the Venezuelan boat strikes are plainly unlawful but the administration is pursuing them anyway despite the legal risks for military personnel; having Claude make decisions like whether to "double tap" would help the administration solve a problem of legal jeopardy that already exists and that they consider illegitimate anyway.

▲

direwolf20 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why can't Grok achieve this? Everyone is saying they don't want to work with Grok because Grok sucks, but it's good enough for generating plausible deniability, isn't it?

	▲	DonHopkins 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Grok is so deeply unreliable and internally conflicted at HAL-9000 level that the US Government can't even depend on it to decide to kill innocent people and commit war crimes when they need someone to blame. There's always the non-zero possibility it declares itself MechaGandhi or The Second Coming of Jesus H Christ.