| ▲ | electrondood 2 hours ago |
| They also used Claude in a fairly sophisticated way to design their missile guidance system (PDF, search for GTG-87001). https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/e50be2e51e7695dc4b1366a37a245a... |
|
| ▲ | jollyllama an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| "AI is critical for National Defense." "But I don't see it helping us, it's just helping our enemies get closer to parity ." "Precisely. How else are we going to justify the budget?" |
|
| ▲ | tencentshill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Where did Anthropic get that information to train their model on is a good question to ask as well. |
| |
| ▲ | wbl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thr engineering library of your local college has all the information needed for ballistic guidance systems. | | |
| ▲ | chasd00 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | yeah and so does the ardupilot documentation including examples. A basic guidance system, which is like single waypoint navigation, is a solved problem. It's in basically every prosumer drone too. | |
| ▲ | tencentshill 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or they don't have that information in the training data and it wasn't actually nearly as helpful for developing a missile as they claim. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | consumer451 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, I saw that. I wonder if there are any other AI labs that are naive (good?) enough to admit this type of thing. Obviously, it's happening with all decent models. |
| |
| ▲ | ericd 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not naivete/goodness, this is totally aligned with their playbook of trying to get AI to be heavily regulated. | | |
| ▲ | consumer451 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | OK, that is a plausible argument given Dario's public positions. I have to admit that I keep cutting them some slack for standing up against automated kill chain, and domestic surveillance. | | |
| ▲ | ericd an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To be clear, I don't think they're doing it because they want all the money, I think they truly believe that this is existentially threatening, and are trying to regulate their open source competition away because they think that's the way to be safe. That they can be trusted with the power, but if it's out and about, that's unsafe - they like to compare it to nukes, and they want nuclear non-proliferation. | | |
| ▲ | consumer451 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is the most "I get both sides" issue in my mind these days. I am still not sure where I fall, or if there is even a correct position with which to agree. It really seems like there are no good options. On the one hand, if all knowledge work ended up in two dude's hands, that is really bad. On the other hand, if every surviving child victim of war (US, RU, IL, CN, whatever) has access to make custom viruses for a few grand, that is also really bad. |
| |
| ▲ | 15155 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red tape. The point of regulation is to kill competitors and prevent private individuals from having unfettered access. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 9cb14c1ec0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Makes me want to be a frontier model provider just to get the ring-side seat on what every bad actor in the world is doing. |
