The Pentagon has its eye on the leading AI company, which this week softened its ban on military use.

The Pentagon has its eye on the leading AI company, which this week softened its ban on military use.

  • funkforager@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2541·
    8 months ago

    Remember when open ai was a nonprofit first and foremost, and we were supposed to trust they would make AI for good and not evil? Feels like it was only Thanksgiving…

    • Dave@lemmy.nzEnglish
      115·
      8 months ago

      I mean, there was all that drama where the board formed to prevent this from happening kicked out the CEO trying to do this stuff, then the board got booted out and replaced with a new board and brought back that CEO guy. So this was pretty much going to happen.

      • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        63·
        8 months ago

        And some people pointed it out even back then. There were signs that the employees were very loyal to Altmann, but Altmann didn’t meet the security concerns of the board. So stuff like this was just a matter of time.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.worldEnglish
          323·
          7 months ago

          People pointed this out as a point in Altmann’s favor, too. “All the employees support him and want him back, he can’t be a bad guy!”

          Well, ya know what, I’m usually the last person to ever talk shit about the workers, but in this case, I feel like this isn’t a good thing. I sincerely doubt the employees of that company that backed Altmann had taken any of the ethics of the tool they’re creating into account. They’re all career minded, they helped develop a tool that is going to make them a lot of money, and I guarantee the culture around that place is futurist as fuck. Altmann’s removal put their future at risk. Of course they wanted him back.

          And frankly I don’t think you can spend years of your life building something like ChatGBT without having drunk the Koolaid yourself.

          The truth is OpenAI, as a body, set out to make a deeply destructive tool, and the incentives are far, far too strong and numerous. Capitalism is corrosive to ethics; it has to be in enforced by a neutral regulatory body.

      • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        36·
        8 months ago

        Effective altruism is just capitalism camoflauge, it’s also just really bad at being camoflauge

        • Dave@lemmy.nzEnglish
          2·
          7 months ago

          This summary article says the board stated:

          “Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities,” OpenAI’s post said. “The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.”

          The article also says:

          Rumors and speculation swirled on social media, with tech industry heads, reporters, and onlookers trying to make sense of the situation based on what little information was provided in the board’s announcement. Tech journalist Kara Swisher quickly reported that based on what information she had from sources, there was a “misalignment” between OpenAI’s for-profit side, represented by Altman, and the nonprofit side, which is controlled by the board.

          As far as I know the exact issue was not made public, but basically the board is there to make sure the company puts ethics over profits. Altman was hiding stuff from the board (presumably because they would consider it in conflict with their goal), and so the board fired him. But then there was an uproar from the investors, Microsoft almost ended up hiring half the company as they threatened to resign in droves, and in the end the board resigned and was replaced.

          Does that answer the question?

            • Spedwell@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              7 months ago

              I seriously doubt it had anything to do with his wedding. I don’t think the sexuality of a CEO is that big an issue in this day (see: Tim Cook).

              Especially considering how Atman’s has steered OpenAI vs. the boards’ stated mission, it seems much more likely that his temporary ousting had to do with company direction rather than his sexuality.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                7 months ago

                And when I hear about a minority being pushed out of a position with no obvious cause I wonder. Homophobia does exist, he announces his gay wedding, gets fired, and no one can come up with a clear reason why. Yeah

                • Spedwell@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  7 months ago

                  I mean, their press release said “not consistently candid”, which is about as close to calling someone a liar as corporate speak will get. Altman ended up back in the captain’s chair, and we haven’t heard anything further.

                  If the original reason for firing made Altman look bad, we would expect this silence.

                  If the original reason was a homophobic response from the board, we might expect OpenAI to come out and spin a vague statement on how the former board had a personal gripe with Altman unrelated to his performance as CEO, and that after replacing the board everything is back to the business of delivering value etc. etc.

                  I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but given all we know, I don’t think the fact that Altman is gay (now a fairly general digestible fact for public figures) is the reason he was ousted. Especially if you follow journalism about TESCREAL/Silicon Valley philosophies it is clear to see: this was the board trying to preserve the original altruistic mission of OpenAI, and the commercial branch finally shedding the dead weight.

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.worldEnglish
      50·
      8 months ago

      I remember when they pretended to be that. The fact that the board got replaced when it tried to exert its own power proves it was a facade from the beginning. All the PR benefits of “taking safety seriously” with none of those pesky “safety vs profitability” concerns.

    • guacupado@lemmy.worldEnglish
      283·
      7 months ago

      I stopped having faith in nonprofits after seeing how much the successful ones pay their CEOs. They’re just businesses riding the low-tax train until they’re rich enough to not care anymore.

      • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        412·
        7 months ago

        I don’t understand that point of view? Why would they pay their CEOs less than any other company? If they did, then they would either not be able to hire CEOs, have the shittiest CEOs or have CEOs that wouldn’t give a crap. People don’t live on welfare, especially highly connected, highly educated people like CEOs.

        • grepe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          161·
          7 months ago

          Why do you think lower paid CEO must be shitty? There turns out to be very little link between the CEO and CEO pay and the company performance… they are only paid a lot cause they are in the position of power to directly influence their salary.

          • uranibaba@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            7 months ago

            they are only paid a lot cause they are in the position of power to directly influence their salary.

            And not because they have a much higher responsibility? As a CEO, it is your job to make sure a company makes a profit (unless you are a nonprofit, I guess you have some other goal you need to achieve). That is what you a pay a CEO to do. I assume you would pay more for someone who is able to turn a higher profit.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      8 months ago

      Which was always a big fat lie. I mean just look at who was involved in getting OpenAI started. Mostly super rich tech people meeting privately to divide the market among themselves like colonial powers divided their territories.

    • Moira_Mayhem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      17·
      7 months ago

      It seems to be a trend that any service that claims not to be evil is just waiting for the right moment to drop that pretense.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        51·
        8 months ago

        “In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: ‘Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others’ throats with greater facility.'”

        Hiram Maxim

        I wonder if something similar happened with openAI.

        Forgot about NFTs and marketing. Invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others’ throats more efficiently.

    • wooki@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      54·
      7 months ago

      I wouldnt be too worried they’ve just made an over glorified word predictor and blender of peoples art

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          7 months ago

          Chatgpt would be a terrible propaganda tool. Also why do you need a better one? The existing ones work pretty well. Fox/Sky News and the internet troll army out of Russia.

        • wooki@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          12·
          7 months ago

          Propaganda isn’t new. Sure it’s more widely available now but it’s not new

            • wooki@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
              0·
              7 months ago

              Again not new stop grandstanding it as a new effect. Media outlets have been doing this since the dawn of journalism. Scientific process created to combat it, political standards to help reduce it fand laws to make it financially unattractive act remains its not new.

              The only thing that is new. The financial gain from the hype of abusing the word AI and thr media not calling it out. But hey here we are back at the start. Its not new.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    100·
    7 months ago

    I can’t wait until we find out AI trained on military secrets is leaking military secrets.

    • Jknaraa@lemmy.mlEnglish
      242·
      7 months ago

      I can’t wait until people find out that you don’t even need to train it on secrets, for it to “leak” secrets.

        • Jknaraa@lemmy.mlEnglish
          6·
          7 months ago

          Language learning models are all about identifying patterns in how humans use words and copying them. Thing is that’s also how people tend to do things a lot of the time. If you give the LLM enough tertiary data it may be capable of ‘accidentally’ (read: randomly) outputting things you don’t want people to see.

    • Bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.worldEnglish
      162·
      7 months ago

      I mean even with chatgpt enterprise you prevent that.

      It’s only the consumer versions that train on your data and submissions.

      Otherwise no legal team in the world would consider chatgpt or copilot.

      • Scribbd@feddit.nlEnglish
        2·
        7 months ago

        I will say that they still store and use your data some way. They just haven’t been caught yet.

        Anything you have to send over the internet to a server you do not control, will probably not work for a infosec minded legal team.

  • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.worldEnglish
    761·
    8 months ago

    Capitalism gotta capital. AI has the potential to be revolutionary for humanity, but because of the way the world works it’s going to end up being a nightmare. There is no future under capitalism.

  • SGG@lemmy.worldEnglish
    764·
    8 months ago

    War, huh, yeah

    What is it good for?

    Massive quarterly profits, uhh

    War, huh, yeah

    What is it good for?

    Massive quarterly profits

    Say it again, y’all

    War, huh (good God)

    What is it good for?

    Massive quarterly profits, listen to me, oh

  • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.worldEnglish
    483·
    7 months ago

    Anonymous user: I have an army on the Smolensk Upland and I need to get it to the low counties. Create the best route to march them.

    Chat GPT:… Putin is that you again?

    Anonymous user: эн

  • Alto@kbin.social
    202·
    8 months ago

    So while this is obviously bad, did any of you actually think for a moment that this was stopping anything? If the military wants to use ChatGPT, they’re going to find a way whether or not OpenAI likes it. In their minds they may as well get paid for it.

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.worldEnglish
      171·
      8 months ago

      You mean the military with access to a massive trove of illegal surveillance (aka training data), and billions of dollars in dark money to spend, that is always on the bleeding edge of technological advancement?

      That military? Yeah, they’ve definitely been in on this one for a while.

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      English
      82·
      7 months ago

      Arms salesman are just as guilty, fuck off with this “Others would do it too!”, they are the ones doing it now, they deserve to at least getting shit for it. Sam Altman was always a snake.

    • bean@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      I can see them having their own GPT, using the model and their own data. Not using the tool to send secret info ‘out’ and back in to their own system.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        8 months ago

        I can see the CIA flooding foreign countries with fake news during elections. All automated! It really was inevitable.

      • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        8 months ago

        The DoD is happy to use commercial services as long as the security meets their needs.

        They likely have a private version running on gov cloud high though.

    • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      7 months ago

      It’s not a nothing burger in the sense that this signals a distinct change at OpenAI’s new direction following the realignment of the board. Of course AI has been in military applications for a good while, that’s not news at all. I think the bigger message is that the supposed altruistic direction of OpenAI was either never a thing or never will be again.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      72·
      7 months ago

      The military has had Ai and Microsoft contracts but the military guys themselves suck massive balls at making good stuff. They only make expensive stuff.

      Remember the “best defense in the world with super Ai camera tracking” being wrecked by a thousand dudes with AK’s three months ago

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    61·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    OpenAI this week quietly deleted language expressly prohibiting the use of its technology for military purposes from its usage policy, which seeks to dictate how powerful and immensely popular tools like ChatGPT can be used.

    “We aimed to create a set of universal principles that are both easy to remember and apply, especially as our tools are now globally used by everyday users who can now also build GPTs,” OpenAI spokesperson Niko Felix said in an email to The Intercept.

    Suchman and Myers West both pointed to OpenAI’s close partnership with Microsoft, a major defense contractor, which has invested $13 billion in the LLM maker to date and resells the company’s software tools.

    The changes come as militaries around the world are eager to incorporate machine learning techniques to gain an advantage; the Pentagon is still tentatively exploring how it might use ChatGPT or other large-language models, a type of software tool that can rapidly and dextrously generate sophisticated text outputs.

    While some within U.S. military leadership have expressed concern about the tendency of LLMs to insert glaring factual errors or other distortions, as well as security risks that might come with using ChatGPT to analyze classified or otherwise sensitive data, the Pentagon remains generally eager to adopt artificial intelligence tools.

    Last year, Kimberly Sablon, the Pentagon’s principal director for trusted AI and autonomy, told a conference in Hawaii that “[t]here’s a lot of good there in terms of how we can utilize large-language models like [ChatGPT] to disrupt critical functions across the department.”

    The original article contains 1,196 words, the summary contains 254 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!