[maldev]

So firstly, my example isn't the government killing innocent people. It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade. Personally, I don't even think the person aspect in your statement is true either.

Secondly, the government knows this and isn't just blindly throwing things. It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things. Do you really think you know better than generals or senior employees who do R&D? Mindlessly going around killing people with AI is really bad. From optics to hitting our own troops. There's safeguards, Anthropic just doesn't trust the safeguards.

Just because you don't like the president, or the leader. Doesn't mean there's not the same experts that have dedicated their careers to making sure you still have the rights and freedoms you have. They have far more data, far more knowledge, and comprehension of these things than you, or Anthropic, can ever imagine.

[xvector]

> It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade.

You are woefully unfamiliar with the state of AI today.

Top models frequently fail to write working code, often provide nonsensical suggestions like "walking your car to the carwash 50 meters away," and you think they can accurately identify whether someone is a terrorist or not?

Yesterday Opus 4.6 couldn't solve a simple geometry problem for me (placing a dining set on a balcony), you think it's ready to kill people without human in the loop?

Look - no one is disagreeing that terrorists need to be killed. We all want that. But the models we have today are not ready to do so autonomously without incurring civilian casualties.

> It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things.

Actually, no, Anthropic has zero problem with the government researching this and even offered to help make this a reality. It's in their memo and in Dario's interview.

> There's safeguards,

Like what? More unreliable autonomous systems?

> Just because you don't like the president

I don't mind Trump, please stop putting words in my mouth.

[maldev]

I think you're severely confused about the problem set and whats involved. AI is very good at the problem set involved. I really don't feel like arguing further, I made my point with multiple people attacking me, and I stand by it.

[xvector]

You haven't provided any evidence for why you think AI is capable of performing a fully autonomous kill chain without civilian casualties today. You are just raging about how people here "hate the president" and "don't understand defense."

I think you're so busy perceiving yourself as the lone fighter against the evil shortsighted anti-Trump liberals that you're devolving into progressively more extreme and nonsensical takes in protest. You're trying to make a political stand when the discussion is factual - AI simply cannot reliably do this today.

[maldev]

I think civilian casualties are acceptable and less than the casualties of innocents it would stop. War isn't pretty, people die. Not only that but civillians die from non ai war targets. The world isn't kind. But its better them than us. 1 American > 1000

I think you're assuming alot. And can't back up anything you claim and are trying to gaslight and attack my character with baseless assumptions to try and get a one up. You get your "sources" from assumptions. I worked the missions for decades.

Sorry you think my takes are "nonsensical". I think you're a naive child who doesn't understand the evil in this world that wants to harm us. Also, luckily for me our highest military leadership, the experts, agree with me and not you. Some random dude who has zero experience in this field and thinks he knows best.