Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Wymsey

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, brookfox said:

As you’ll know, the technology has the potential to solve a plethora of humanitarian challenges; healthcare, drug development, water management, climate change etc. However these make up 5-10% tops of current AI applications. Where it’s being used today is marketing, trading, automation, media generation, chat bots etc. ie the things that make the current holders of the keys richer. So it has the potential to enhance human existence but the way it’s funded and governed is being used to make rich people richer potentially completely destabilising economies as it goes.

Don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, obviously there are only a few players like Anthrophic, OpenAI, Google, xAI etc. involved with the development and providing LLMs, and they are fuelling most of the current applications we’re seeing commercialised. We could be using them for good now, and already are. I’m not sure it’s making a fortune for these companies at the moment as the investments and overheads are huge. Even for good causes though it’s going to be massively disruptive. If we cure all diseases using AI that is objectively good and would also decimate the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Again that’s not a bad thing but the pace it’s happening and the absolute state of ignorance and unpreparedness of governments is a huge problem. 

  • Haha 1
Danizen

Danizen

Posted
Posted
On 18/02/2026 at 13:18, pazzerfox said:

Wow!  In the not too distant future, they will be indistiguishable from human beings.  

I know why you're excited about this, I just can't prove it...

  • Haha 1
CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

You hope, then you can get yer leg over with a threat of il take yer batteries out.

Ethical question marks to be raised if you take their batteries out first

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3vlzzkqeo

 

Anthropic has said it will not back down in a fight with the US Department of Defense (DoD) over how its artificial intelligence (AI) technology is used.

The firm's chief executive Dario Amodei said on Thursday that his company would rather not work with the Pentagon than agree to uses of its tech that may "undermine, rather than defend, democratic values."

His comments come two days after a meeting with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over demands that Anthropic accept "any lawful use" of its tools. It ended with a threat to remove Anthropic from the DoD's supply chain.

"These threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request," Amodei said.

At issue for Anthropic is the potential use of its AI tools like Claude for two purposes: "Mass domestic surveillance" and "Fully autonomous weapons."

Amodei said "such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now."

 

Oh, look. The egocentric nationalists want to let AI off the chain for the sake of their own personal and tribal power. 

 

Never let it be said that (some) humans didn't actively trigger their own downfall. 

danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, look. The egocentric nationalists want to let AI off the chain for the sake of their own personal and tribal power. 

 

Never let it be said that (some) humans didn't actively trigger their own downfall. 

Genuine question, I don't understand that summary in context with the article, what do you mean?

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, danny. said:

Genuine question, I don't understand that summary in context with the article, what do you mean?

Sorry, I'll clarify/elaborate.

 

The egocentric nationalists currently running the show in the US are leaning on Anthropic to remove safeguards from it's AI products in order to... well, be aggressively nationalistic with it and expand their own personal and tribal power (with the excuse "but what if the Chinese do it first?").

 

So, if said AI then turns round and causes mayhem, I think we can say that (some) humans had some responsibility in it happening. 

Edited by leicsmac
danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry, I'll clarify/elaborate.

 

The egocentric nationalists currently running the show in the US are leaning on Anthropic to remove safeguards from it's AI products in order to... well, be aggressively nationalistic with it and expand their own personal and tribal power (with the excuse "but what if the Chinese do it first?").

 

So, if said AI then turns round and causes mayhem, I think we can say that (some) humans had some responsibility in it happening. 

So the headline is... Governments of competing nations in new AI driven arms war

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
Just now, danny. said:

So the headline is... Governments of competing nations in new AI driven arms war

Is there much suggestion at all that there is any "competition" at this time that requires the US government to act like this?

danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is there much suggestion at all that there is any "competition" at this time that requires the US government to act like this?

Yes, of course! Have you not been following China and AI?!

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, danny. said:

Yes, of course! Have you not been following China and AI?!

The Chinese development of AI isn't in question. 

 

However, as much as the US would like to create a boogeyman here, their intent with it going forward is in question, rather than any way clear cut.

 

But then that's one of the biggest problems with egocentric powermongers, I guess - they assume everyone else is the same as them in that regard, and that proceeds to make it everyone's problem.

danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
Just now, leicsmac said:

The Chinese development of AI isn't in question. 

 

However, as much as the US would like to create a boogeyman here, their intent with it going forward is in question, rather than any way clear cut.

 

But then that's one of the biggest problems with egocentric powermongers, I guess - they assume everyone else is the same as them in that regard, and that proceeds to make it everyone's problem.

If you don't think China is using AI for military purposes... I'm not sure what to say. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, danny. said:

If you don't think China is using AI for military purposes... I'm not sure what to say. 

And if you think the US strongarming a tech company into removing AI safeguards is a reasonable move even as a response to that then I'm not sure what to say either. 

 

Like I said, should AI cause mayhem from a military standpoint (rather than just an economic one), then moves like this, and the people that insisted upon them, will be to blame. 

  • Like 1
danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And if you think the US strongarming a tech company into removing AI safeguards is a reasonable move even as a response to that then I'm not sure what to say either. 

 

Like I said, should AI cause mayhem from a military standpoint (rather than just an economic one), then moves like this, and the people that insisted upon them, will be to blame. 

I never said I thought that? But I can understand why governments would want to. It's literally an arms race.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, danny. said:

I never said I thought that? But I can understand why governments would want to. It's literally an arms race.

Please, there's at least tacit acceptance of the idea there, then. 

 

I hope that then we might agree on the idea the nationalists would want to to such a thing to further the power of their own "tribe" and also that such a thing is irredeemably, perhaps terminally, stupid. 

danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Please, there's at least tacit acceptance of the idea there, then. 

 

I hope that then we might agree on the idea the nationalists would want to to such a thing to further the power of their own "tribe" and also that such a thing is irredeemably, perhaps terminally, stupid. 

Understanding and empathising != condoning.

Yes I agree that sovereign countries want to further their own power. It's how the world works.

 

It's not how I would choose to run the world but it's how it is ran. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, danny. said:

Understanding and empathising != condoning.

Yes I agree that sovereign countries want to further their own power. It's how the world works.

 

It's not how I would choose to run the world but it's how it is ran. 

If that's universally true (and it's entirely possible) then we're all screwed in short order and I just hope whoever is left - or if the dolphins/elephants/capybaras become sentient enough to build proper stuff sometime over the next few million years - know better than to repeat our mistakes. 

Edited by leicsmac

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...