That language is not consistent with:

> No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems

That depends on whether you view the cited authorities as already prohibiting that usage. I don't have an opinion on that, but some folks on both sides of the isle might have strong arguments that they do.

▲

tensor 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's still not consistent. OpenAI made a statement that simply isn't true. They agree to all lawful use, INCLUDING using it to deploy weapons as long as it's legal. It happens to not be legal at the moment, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed and authorized.

▲

piker 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a fair point, and I'm not so much defending sama's statements after the fact but rather trying to rationalize the OpenAI position.

	▲	pamcake 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		OpenAI and sama are literally sauing they are fine with facilitating (and even performing) any scale of killing and surveillance as long as they're not held accountable.
	▲	miltonlost 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Rationalize the OpenAI position? Sam Altman gets money from DoD. He has no morals. He doesn't care if people die because of his product. It's not hard.

▲

purple_ferret 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We live in a world of Trump-esque "truths" where if you claim something once, nothing subsequent matters.

Not surprised to see a guy like Altman adopt the strategy

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]