Please, please stop supporting gen AI companies.

[cali@infosec.exchange]

@hacks4pancakes and they wonder how people get radicalised

[aud@fire.asta.lgbt]

@hacks4pancakes@infosec.exchange I've been angry about this every single day this week. Multiple times, even. "This is so good at coding!!! we're gonna get left behind!!" no it isn't, no you aren't, they are using it to fucking kill people, which should never have been a thing you should have had to consider because frankly you already should have rejected the usage of LLMs due to the eight million other ethical and moral problems with them.

[heinzenstein@f-ckendehoelle.de]

@hacks4pancakes
Just ask yourself:
If they didn't - would they still deny it?

[softwaretheron@mas.to]

@hacks4pancakes
Safe bet there's a contractual clause saying the Pentagon is not allowed to explain which manufacturer's "product" they used.

[clickhere@mastodon.ie]

@hacks4pancakes Could not agree more. And so long as these companies are solely blamed, and not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military, that's another victory for DJ "bone spurs" T.

[hacks4pancakes@infosec.exchange]

Phew, that spun people up on BlueSky

[wendynather@infosec.exchange]

@hacks4pancakes You’re my hero.

[jmax@mastodon.social]

@hacks4pancakes Thank you.

[neurovagrant@masto.deoan.org]

@wendynather @hacks4pancakes seconded

[momo@social.linux.pizza]

@hacks4pancakes
I wonder if that decision to use AI in targetting was based on "Yes, use AI, it's perfect and can't do mistakes!!" or rather "We know that AI makes wrong decisions and combining this with live ammunition costs innocent lives. But it's not our civilians who get blown up, so we don't care. Acceptable is good enough!"-Irresponsibity.

Or in simple terms: Are they ignorantly stupid or just cruel?

[gbargoud@masto.nyc]

@momo @hacks4pancakes

That one's really hard because they have shown themselves to be both so many times

[mndflayr@metalhead.club]

@hacks4pancakes

Congrats for the second post in that screen shot, I think the point you made there is not stated often enough.

I really hate how LLM took over the general term "AI", that has been used in CS research for dozens of different approaches.

[jmax@mastodon.social]

@momo @hacks4pancakes Both.

[hacks4pancakes@infosec.exchange]

@mndflayr I drink and I know something

[maccruiskeen@social.linux.pizza]

@momo @hacks4pancakes The leadership is swayed by the AI $$$. And they're too stupid to conider anything else. At work we've been testing a Claude-based system to remediate mssing alt-text in ebooks, and the results would not make me confident you could use it for targeting. In fact, the opposite of that.

[lily_and_frog@mastodon.art]

@momo @hacks4pancakes

Third option:
They're cruel and murderous on purpose (Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and the US supports it after all) and initially planned to use AI as plausible denial for PR reasons, but don't because it doesn't make it look any better. Worse, in fact.

[elltee@mastodon.cloud]

@hacks4pancakes
Its the opposite for me. I drink and I stop knowing things.

@mndflayr

[cosmicktrigger@mastodon.social]

@hacks4pancakes

To be fair, it's really easy to spin people up on Bluesky.

I don't know of any truly left-leaning people who support AI.

[cosmicktrigger@mastodon.social]

@hacks4pancakes

We just need to give better training to the LLMs and make them wear body cams

[raven667@hachyderm.io]

@hacks4pancakes and the smug "military targeters would probably have made the same mistake" makes me think of Chief Wright (Stonekettle Station) who did targeting during the first Gulf War and talked about sleepless nights double-checking intelligence to make sure they didn't kill civilians, and called off attacks when they couldn't be sure, who would have been personally devastated if they learned a missile they launched had killed school-kids. The military structure at the time allowed him to care about such things, but Secretary Kegseth doesn't seem to care or have a soul as far as I can tell.