← Back to context

Comment by raincole

19 hours ago

And what? Get nationalized? Get labelled as terrorists?

The US system doesn't empower a company to say no. It should though.

12 comments

raincole

Reply
dgellow  13 hours ago

Yes. Force them to do it the hard way and fight through it. Don’t abdicate in advance

aziaziazi  19 hours ago

You, me or a company don’t need a system empowerments to say "no" though. Just say it. I would certainly choose being called "terrorist" in front of the class over helping to deploy weapons, let alone autonomous ones.

You own nothing but your opinion. (No offense to personal property aficionados)

  • neatze  17 hours ago

    I don't understand this, for example, what would you have done if you where Ukrainian right now ? (before 2014 arguably start of conflict and after invasion)

    • aziaziazi  17 hours ago

      That is an interesting question, very far from my daily concern and brings dilemmas when I think about it. My response would probably be "I don’t know".

      However Anthropic situation is very different: there’s no ongoing invasion of the USA, and they traditionally attack other countries once in a while (no judgment) so the weapons upgrade will be "useful" on the field.

      5 replies →

    • esseph  14 hours ago

      > I don't understand this, for example, what would you have done if you where Ukrainian right now ? (before 2014 arguably start of conflict and after invasion)

      There are a lot of well meaning people that are very anti-weapon or anti-violence under any circumstances. The problem is that when those people actually need those weapons and that violence, they are so inadequate at it that they become a liability to themselves and others.

      I'm not saying I have or know of a solution, but I remember the old saying (paraphrasing) that it's better to be a warrior working a farm than a farmer working a war.