> Would you go to the weapons manufacturer and try to hold them culpable for the strike?
Yes, depending on the level of autonomy of the weapon, how it was being marketed etc. If it was being sold as an 'AI' that is supposedly very smart so who's a mere mortal to question it, then yes.
I would of course hold the human culpable too, but this is why precisely even selling Claude for military use is immoral. The way the US conducts war means there's always a need for more targets. More and more targets, quickly. If the goal then is to hit as many targets as possible then each 'review' of a LLM suggestion is going to be more and more sloppy than the last one. If there's no 'AI' suggesting targets then the list is forced to go via more human review by the very nature of humans compiling the target list.
It's the same as using a LLM for code; the vast majority of programmers do not understand everything they're accepting, but they'll accept as long as it 'looks correct' and only examine more closely after something doesn't work, (in the military use case - after a strike).
LLMs are unreliable for anything more than reciting jokes, let alone picking targets. So yes, absolutely.
It's the same as Facebook being held liable for causing teens harm; they did not force any teen to use it and yet they knew what would most likely happen if they did.
i dont think he said it in those words, but the acceptable terms of use is that humans stay in the loop for picking targets.
so, claude suggesting killing a bunch of children, and then hegsdeth approving the strikes is perfectly acceptable.
claude putting a bomb in a girls school, and then lying to an operator that it actually gives ice cream an cookies, and the operator clicka the button would also be acceptable?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7DOQlIQxz5M
and you know, that use case doesn't even violate their terms
If a human approved the strike, the human is culpable. Would you go to the weapons manufacturer and try to hold them culpable for the strike?
> Would you go to the weapons manufacturer and try to hold them culpable for the strike?
Yes, depending on the level of autonomy of the weapon, how it was being marketed etc. If it was being sold as an 'AI' that is supposedly very smart so who's a mere mortal to question it, then yes.
I would of course hold the human culpable too, but this is why precisely even selling Claude for military use is immoral. The way the US conducts war means there's always a need for more targets. More and more targets, quickly. If the goal then is to hit as many targets as possible then each 'review' of a LLM suggestion is going to be more and more sloppy than the last one. If there's no 'AI' suggesting targets then the list is forced to go via more human review by the very nature of humans compiling the target list.
It's the same as using a LLM for code; the vast majority of programmers do not understand everything they're accepting, but they'll accept as long as it 'looks correct' and only examine more closely after something doesn't work, (in the military use case - after a strike).
LLMs are unreliable for anything more than reciting jokes, let alone picking targets. So yes, absolutely.
It's the same as Facebook being held liable for causing teens harm; they did not force any teen to use it and yet they knew what would most likely happen if they did.
i dont think he said it in those words, but the acceptable terms of use is that humans stay in the loop for picking targets.
so, claude suggesting killing a bunch of children, and then hegsdeth approving the strikes is perfectly acceptable.
claude putting a bomb in a girls school, and then lying to an operator that it actually gives ice cream an cookies, and the operator clicka the button would also be acceptable?