Meta Permits Its AI Models To Be Used For US Military Purposes (nytimes.com) 39
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Meta will allow U.S. government agencies and contractors working on national security to use its artificial intelligence models for military purposes, the company said on Monday, in a shift from its policy that prohibited the use of its technology for such efforts. Meta said that it would make its A.I. models, called Llama, available to federal agencies and that it was working with defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen as well as defense-focused tech companies including Palantir and Anduril. The Llama models are "open source," which means the technology can be freely copied and distributed by other developers, companies and governments.
Meta's move is an exception to its "acceptable use policy," which forbade the use of the company's A.I. software for "military, warfare, nuclear industries," among other purposes. In a blog post on Monday, Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, said the company now backed "responsible and ethical uses" of the technology that supported the United States and "democratic values" in a global race for A.I. supremacy. "Meta wants to play its part to support the safety, security and economic prosperity of America -- and of its closest allies too," Mr. Clegg wrote. He added that "widespread adoption of American open source A.I. models serves both economic and security interests." The company said it would also share its technology with members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance: Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand in addition to the United States.
Meta's move is an exception to its "acceptable use policy," which forbade the use of the company's A.I. software for "military, warfare, nuclear industries," among other purposes. In a blog post on Monday, Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, said the company now backed "responsible and ethical uses" of the technology that supported the United States and "democratic values" in a global race for A.I. supremacy. "Meta wants to play its part to support the safety, security and economic prosperity of America -- and of its closest allies too," Mr. Clegg wrote. He added that "widespread adoption of American open source A.I. models serves both economic and security interests." The company said it would also share its technology with members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance: Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand in addition to the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm not sure of what Meta brings to the table here vs. alternatives. With Molmo [allenai.org], for example, you can ask it to point to specific things in provided images, for, say, autonomous drone navigation and targeting. LLaMA only just added basic multmodal models.
Re:Important Feature (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, I'm not sure of what Meta brings to the table here
A need for government contracts. That is, money.
The question is: Why does the DOD want to use Meta's AI? Answer: They simply want to try out everything. "Here is money, please take it!" Did you really think Zuckerberg would reply, "We don't want your filthy, filthy money!" Especially since they are already in bed with the government to help facilitate spying on people and censoring information and other psyops?
Re: (Score:2)
Modern combat involves very little trench warfare--the kind of warfare that requires people with "legs." Most of today's warfare involves information gathering and processing, and remote operation of various types of drones. There are certainly a lot of potential applications for AI models in this type of warfare.
The Five Eyes? (Score:5, Insightful)
When people hear "US Military use" they think of carpet bombing brown people in the desert.
When people hear "The Five Eyes Alliance" they think of subversive government trying to curtail the freedoms and privacy of those they are supposed to serve.
Guess we know what Meta has in store then. Fuckerburg just sold out everyone to the traditional panopticon.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess we know what Meta has in store then. Fuckerburg just sold out everyone to the traditional panopticon.
Facebook was already known to be a member of PRISM like Apple and Microsoft, so we already knew they were part of the panopticon. This is only confirmation, not news. Facebook was absolutely never going to restrict these models from military use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook was already known to be a member of PRISM
There's a big difference from the panopticon of digital price fixing and cyberstalking VS. the panopticon of drones (human or artificial) with guns.
Tell us you don't know enough to participate in this conversation [wikipedia.org] without telling us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we already knew Facebook was a member of PRISM. I never said they weren't. By using Meta's AI directly in military conflicts however, Meta has gone from a snitch to the person holding the gun. Which makes their mass surveillance even more egregious and poses even greater potential for abusing the general public with deadly consequences. That was the point of my post you idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny...that's not what I think of when I hear US Military.
They defend the US bravely...they have saved the world through many wars, WW1, WW2...etc.
They don't care what color anyone is or where they are if they need to be dealt with....
Re: The Five Eyes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad he said it out loud rather than in a back room like everyone else, though.
The "Joy" of Oligopolies (Score:1)
Zuck is probably thinking: "Now that Musk has gone super-evil, my semi-evil won't stand out as much. Haters of corporate hubris can't just run off to X."
Zuckerberg acting against privacy? I'm shocked! (Score:2)
"Meta will allow U.S. government agencies and contractors working on national security to use its artificial intelligence models for military purposes, the company said on Monday..."
Like Zuckerberg could stop them even if he wanted to...and he doesn't want to. I wonder what kind of deal he cut.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. How does military use of AI models relate to privacy?
Re: Zuckerberg acting against privacy? I'm shocked (Score:1)
That's a nasty case of myopia you have there.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you don't know either, or you would have been able to explain it.
Cleggy still working at facebook? (Score:2)
Grand Fenwick (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Par for the course (Score:3)
"We have principles, a moral code that we will never, ever break.
Unless we can make more money."
Companies have policies that hold high moral standards to that which they are not currently doing. The second those moral standards are in conflict with profit, their moral standards are suddenly surprisingly flexible.
The "stock price above all" switch that took over in the 1980s effectively banned morality for publicly held corporations, if you don't do the profitable thing now, no matter how morally repugnant, the board will replace you with someone who will. "Go evil early" has become sound financial planning, as it gives you a jump on the competition that will inevitably be forced to follow.
Re:Par for the course (Score:4, Insightful)
all this blather and hand wringing over arming our own militaries which quite literally protect us all from death, destruction, and the madness that exists in the rest of the planet
Our military is fostering the death, destruction, and madness that exists in the rest of the planet. We have supported coups, assassinated leaders, founded colonies and armed them so they can commit genocide...
Re: (Score:3)
I lived in Central America for most of the last year. The picture you paint of it is a fucking idiot's stereotype of decades past. And most of the revolutions then were funded, armed, and/or fought by the USA against democratically elected governments. Read some actual history, not just the USA-centric watered down history taught in schools there.
The rest of your post is just right wing fantasies and generalizations with delusions not worth responding to.
Naive (Score:1)
The idea that we're not going to use such tech for "military, warfare, or nuclear" purposes is naive and stupid virtue signalling.
Do we insist window manufacturers certify "our windows aren't used in military buildings" or plumbers "we don't allow soldiers to shit in our hardware"?
I'd be delighted if there was somehow a way to prevent people who moralistically take a 'stance' against the military & police would somehow be able to be divorced from the benefits of either. But for now, they are free-rider
No way to restrict it (Score:3)
Meta executives told Reuters that "the Chinese government was not authorized to use Llama for military purposes".
But if anyone can get their hands on Llama and do whatever they like, I don't think a niggling license issue is going to be an impediment. So it isn't surprising that Meta would accept the inevitable and just go ahead and give the US and its allies explicit permission.
list primary targets (Score:2)
list primary targets
What is a military purpose? (Score:3)
Hallucinated Intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pork (Score:2)
Meta? (Score:1)
So... ban trading with them? (Score:2)
If Huawei cannot get those chips.
interesting terminology (Score:2)
They want some of that Palantir profit. (Score:2)