The company objected to hypothetical future use cases, not anything the military is currently doing.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/43768262

Some may have believed they were against AI being used for war. They just don’t want it to make the final kill decision.

The argument given by those supporting them is that AI in the military was inevitable, so their position is a reasonable one.

  • Iconoclast@feddit.ukEnglish
    131·
    7 hours ago

    Here’s the full quote including the parts you conveniently left out.

    Even fully autonomous weapons (those that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets) may prove critical for our national defense. But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America’s warfighters and civilians at risk. We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems, but they have not accepted this offer.

    Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters—with our two requested safeguards in place.

    Source

    • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
      68·
      7 hours ago

      You said Anthropic didn’t want to develop autonomous weapons. Anthropic contradicts you. They do want to develop them.

      Can you acknowledge this fact?

      I love how Anthropic only draws the line at autonomously killing Americans, too. I guess some lives are worth more than others.

        • Serinus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          4 hours ago

          It’s not a very solid point. They said they may become necessary at some point, but right now they’re irresponsible.

          They’re not ruling it out in the future, but their focus is on today’s problem.

          • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
            21·
            4 hours ago

            Serinus, did you see the part where Anthropic wants to develop them with the US military?