[crooked-v]

Also, more pragmatically speaking, it wouldn't be all that "hard" to recreate current LLM state of the art from scratch now that the techniques are known. It's just really expensive in terms of hardware.

[squigz]

Which is a non-issue for the US military. Not a TOS, nor cost, nor technical expertise is going to stop this sort of technology from being applied to armed forces.

If anyone's upset at Meta for this, they're getting angry at the wrong people...

[pempem]

I think its fair to feel like telling a snake to not act like a snake is terrible (aka the military acting like the military). the turtle doesn't have to join it. Thats an option. assuming its inevitability, that even attempting to shame meta is a waste or threatening to cut access to talent or users, means change cant happen

[dumpsterdiver]

A more appropriate analogy imo would be birds cleaning bugs from large animals such hippos.

The birds benefit from the deterring effect of the larger animal.

[pempem]

I will take that adjustment lol.

[squigz]

I don't see why I should be mad at Meta and not the armed forces that adopt this technology inappropriately.

[haswell]

Why not both?

There are a myriad of reasons to be concerned about the military adopting this kind of tech. If it's reasonable to be upset at the military, it seems equally reasonable to be upset at entities that enable the military.

I don't think it's a matter of "should", but rather, if you're upset at one, it doesn't make much sense not to be upset at the other.

[squigz]

Because getting mad at one is more appropriate and getting mad at the other would be pointless. Militaries will adopt this technology, whether Meta or the big names allow it in the TOS or not.

I also don't get angry at gun manufacturers for the ways their guns are used; I do however get mad at legislators and citizens who enable easier access to guns and promote gun culture.

[dumpsterdiver]

Who should be upset? And about what specifically? U.S. companies supporting the U.S. military has never been a point of contention afaik.

[yunwal]

“Never” is definitely an exaggeration

https://djmag.com/news/sxsw-cuts-ties-us-army-and-weapons-ma...

[croes]

The old “If we don’t do it someone else will” excuse.

By that logic you could excuse also drug dealing and sex trafficking.

There is a difference between don’t having a chance to prevent the use and making it easy.

[impossiblefork]

No, I don't think it is really expensive in terms of hardware. It's probably only a hundred million dollars for renting computing resources.

The problem rather, is that there are actually some difficulties with training very large LLMs still, and then there's data and data curation; and no one has reproduced something like O-1 (I think I know how O-1 works, but I haven't confirmed it), so I actually think it's knowledge about LLM training that is the difficulty.