• CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Seems their actions are only as significant as to the perceived risks to themselves. They had zero problems “disrupting” everyone else.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      No, the article says their problems are with surveillance and automated weapons…

      Which are valid concerns for almost everyone…

      Which is why everyone should have a say in it, and not just the people the AI companies choose to employ.

      If their employees get to decide it, they just won’t have any employees that are willing to say AI shouldn’t be used for that. Employment would be predicated on saying AI should have no limits.

      Which is why if this happened, it would overall be a bad thing.

      • demonsword@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        No, the article says their problems are with surveillance and automated weapons…

        they might be “afraid” but are still doing it anyway, and collecting a paycheck periodically

      • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        No, the article says their problems are with surveillance and automated weapons…

        No. Those are things that affect them. Find something these fuckers won’t do to others that doesn’t also affect them before contradicting my statement.