Pentagon AI more ethical than adversaries’ because of ‘Judeo-Christian society,’ USAF general says::The path to ethical AI is a “very important discussion” being held at DOD’s “very highest levels,” says service’s programs chief.

  • Andy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    112 years ago

    I read the article and this is clearly a guy who watched Terminator and thought, ‘Well hold on that sounds fantastic if we just programmed in a rule where it’s not allowed to violate its programming or misunderstood what we want.’

  • @PabloPicasshole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    272 years ago

    “You see, first thing we did was teach it about the Bible and its teachings. Of course none of that Roman Catholic shit.”

    • @itsnotlupus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      No True Christian would ever activate a fully automated sentry killbot that doesn’t use at least one of its compute cores to pray to the Almighty on a loop.

    • BigFig
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      We taught it the Bible*

      *King James Version

  • IninewCrow
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 years ago

    This is what AI would like them to believe

    A lot researchers a long time ago used to say that in order to judge AI, they would have to get it to pass a Turing Test in order for us to figure out if it just as intelligent or more intelligent than us.

    I always enjoyed the idea that AI will quickly fly right over our heads and our ability to identify it that it will purposely make itself appear dumb or dumber than us while it figures out how to deal with us.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      AI passes the Turing test long before it becomes AI. Are you thinking of the number of tests we have for AGI? (e. g. build flat-packed furniture from the instructions or clean and load a coffee machine to make coffee)

      Malicious AI typically comes down to bad programming which includes deceptive AI, which is easy to do, given LLMs and the obscurity of natural language. This is also why AI is not really ready for public use (except as a toy or creative tool) since it’s very easy to give AI instructions that it will interpret to yield poor results (like AI attack drones killing their commander in simulation).

  • @jmhdBV8l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    672 years ago

    As I understand it, of the branches, the Air Force is the worst for neocon evangelicals. What a quote! It gives me shivers.

  • @LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1972 years ago

    When an air force general uses a term like Judeo-Christian that is worrying. The brainwashing runs high. There’s no such thing as Judeo-Christian. Judaism and Christianity are vastly different religions albeit related. It’s a propaganda term to create an emotional tie with the US and Israel. No one says Judeo-Islam or Judeo-Mormon because it’s idiotic.

    • @Aidinthel@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      192 years ago

      100% agreed. These people only care about Jews in so far as they are useful political props. Ask the members of the Tree of Life synagogue or the passengers of the MS St Louis how much of “Judeo-Christian” society we are.

    • @captain_samuel_brady@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      This motherfucker drops bombs where he is told. The person you need to worry about is the guy who tells him where to drop the bombs.

      • @azdood85@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        you need to worry about is the guy who tells him where to drop the bombs.

        Is the answer God? I feel like thats the right answer. Please lord correct me if I am wrong.

    • @GFGJewbacca@ag.batlord.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 years ago

      I came in here to say just this. I’m a Jewish clergyman, so I deal with this kind of shit a lot. The term isn’t just brainwashing; it’s actively seeking to erase Judaism as part of Christianity. It’s shit like this, combined with Christian Nationalism, which makes me jumpy at first when someone identifies as a Christian.

      • @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        From an armchair political science hot take, it signals something akin to worldwide NATO, inclusive rather than anti-semetic.

        Certainly tons of baseless anti semetic crap does exist, i just don’t see this concept that way.

        • @astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          On its face, I’d agree, but the term is used almost exclusively by the hyper-right wing. No one outside of that sphere uses the term (at least as far as I’ve experienced).

            • @astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Maybe it’s regional or a recent change; it’s been a minute since I was in high school, and my university studies were not in the humanities.

              • @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Perhaps. It was mid 90s, at the onset of the Politically Correct era.

                And i went to an engineering school, but they had us take humanities courses so we would be well rounded and able to communicate good and stuff.

    • @Colitas92@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Also 100% agreed. If anyone really wants a more inclusive term with positive vibes, i already read ‘‘abrahamic heritage’’ , to include jews, christians and muslims going for the commom ties of the mutually recognized first patriarch. It was a random french scholar though, but maybe we can gain traction. God (the abrahamic god) would be pleased.

    • @toasteecup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      172 years ago

      God I appreciate you and this comment so much. Thank you for acknowledging something us Jews suffer to point out constantly.

    • @driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      69
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      You could talk about abrahamic religions, that encompasses Judaism, Christianism, and Islamism because in theory all three worship the same God, but of course they are never grouped like that because they don’t want to be related with Muslims.

      • utm_source
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 years ago

        This becomes clear after spending any amount of time in Colorado Springs

      • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Can confirm.

        My uncle used to fly F-15s for the Air NG, and about 10 or 15 years ago when he had to retire for medical reasons (turns out pulling G’s all the time is bad for your back), he just broke evangelical and is now a fundamentalist pastor.

  • @Grass@geddit.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    These guys and everyone in upper military and government need to just die and the ensuing chaos will be a better form of government without even trying. That’s how fucked up this sounds.

  • @fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    65
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    tl;dr: The headline is false; the general did not actually say that. I thought it sounded wrong, so I watched the video that the article linked to, to check. Sure enough, it was wrong. However, the reality may not be any more reassuring.


    Hypothesis: Like, no, that’s obviously wrong; either the headline is trash or the general made a whole tossed salad with mango sauce out of whatever the people working on it said. (stated before further investigation; stay tuned)


    Updating: https://youtu.be/wn1yEovtYRM?t=3459


    Okay, wow.

    So the speaker is saying this at the end of the panel, in response to a question asking about the use of autonomous weapons.

    They want to talk about who’s trusted to make the decision of whether to employ lethal force in a combat situation: a human American soldier, who might be exhausted and not thinking clearly, or an algorithm that doesn’t get tired.

    And one thing they mention is that an enemy might not have ethics that would lead them them even care about that distinction. And they express that as “Judeo-Christian morality”.

    That doesn’t sit right with me. It sounds to me, in that moment, like they’re implying that people from other cultures could be less moral, and that we should be willing to be more free with our weapons towards such people. That sounds to me like the sort of bullshit that came out of the Vietnam War.

    But the rest of the answer sounds like they’re trying to point at the problem of making command decisions in scenarios where the opponent might deploy autonomous weapons first. If the enemy has already handed decision-making over to an algorithm, how does that affect what we should do?

    And they’re maybe expressing that to their expected audience — mind you, the Air Force is heavily infiltrated by far-right Christian radicals — in a way that they hope makes sense.


    Conclusion: The headline is incorrect; the general did not actually say that a Pentagon AI would be more ethical for any reason; he was talking about the human ethical decision of whether to trust AI to make decisions. But what he did say is complicated and scary for different reasons, including the internal culture of the US Air Force.

        • @rekliner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          Don’t mind that turd. You took the time to do a thoughtful breakdown. It is a subtle nuance whether “Pentagon AI would be more ethical” or “AI managed by Pentagon staff would be used more ethically” and you were right to point it out. The headline could be accused of oversimplifying or clickbaiting but I don’t think it was intentionally falsifying claims. The real story, as you pointed out, is the sense of righteousness and declaring a moral high ground based on any religion.

          • @fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            I think the general’s point stands, though.

            No matter what ethical system you might be using (to decide whether to turn over control of a combat situation to AI), the enemy might be using a different one, and come to different conclusions; and that in turn affects what conclusions you should come to.

            This is actually a decision theory issue; and that’s something that military strategists do study.

    • @brsrklf@compuverse.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      That doesn’t sit right with me. It sounds to me, in that moment, like they’re implying that people from other cultures could be less moral, and that we should be willing to be more free with our weapons towards such people.

      This is, unfortunately, how many, many very religious people think. And it’s not only insulting for everyone not following their beliefs, but also terrifying in my opinion.

      People who believe their god is the only thing that makes them moral aren’t really moral. Because then they never consider why it’s important to, you know, not be an asshole. It’s just compliance.

      And the terrifying part is that since their only frame of reference regarding what “good” is would be whatever their religion dictates, it’s always on the verge of breaking completely. You just need to listen to the wrong interpretation at the wrong moment in your life.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    392 years ago

    Well I just lost some faith in the United States Air Force. Now I’m worried if we can trust them with General Electric 2.1 megaton hydrogen bombs. The USAF has more than a few.

      • Move to lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Where could they be?

        Israel got their shit from somewhere and have not done live testing as far as we know. So I’m willing to bet these “disappearances” are a lot like supply “disappearances” that conveniently end up in the hands of various far right militias they support. Or the “accounting errors” that conveniently result in people they support getting shit loads of funding without any need for congressional decisions.

        The ones at the bottom of the ocean are almost certainly still there, or were eventually retrieved by military diving teams but without mention to the press because why would they?

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          It depends on the size of the search area, which is often comparable to large states in the US. Locating famous wrecks like Titanic and Bismark can be a major undertaking.

          And then if it’s deep like Titanic retrieval may be too expensive, too risky or both.

    • Raltoid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The US military has a wide range of generals, all the way from people who can barely stop themselves from dribbling while staring at a wall for hours as entertainment, to actual competent ones.

      At least this guy is just a moron, some of them are very dangerous. For example US Army General Wesley Clark, who ordered someone to basically start WW3, which didn’t go through because several officers refused to listen to him. Then he ran for president as a democrat, withdres. He later started a consulting firm and now runs a “boutique investment bank”.

      • @drspod@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however, refused to block the Russians through military action saying “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.”[80][81] Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians, instead insisting that troops led by Captain James Blunt encircle the airfield.

        No way! James Blunt, of all people, appears in this story?! You couldn’t make it up!

        • @rekliner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          Huh, I didn’t click the Wikipedia link until I read your comment because I assumed it was a name coincidence. Man, that guy has had one hell of a life.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        For <checks> approaching eighty years, they’ve been pretty good at not dropping any nuclear weapons, even those bombs had a very simple launch code to arm. The rise of Christian Nationalism in the US armed forces has been a concern since the new century and the 9/11 attacks (and subsequent PATRIOT act). I’m not sure Judeo-Christian values and Artificial Intelligence is a benign mix.