This is the right take. AI on the battlefield is a foregone conclusion, so it behooves us to understand and implement AI earlier, rather than later. That way we can do it in a measured and tested way; the alterative is realizing our lack of AI is causing us to lose a war and accelerating implementation of it as much as possible with less regard for safety.

“behoove” in a discussion about tech and the military is where worlds collide. The favorite word of mixed-ly educated, immensely powerful senior enlisted. I’ve been told what behooves me many a time but this is the first time that AI has behooved me.

AI wasn't the thing behooving in my post - it's understanding AI that is behooving us. We should be behoven by it!

I've found that the people who complain about the word behoove are the ones least likely to understand the word's meaning.

Battle AI stuff is already developed in-house or by firms like Palantir.

OpenAI's products are more likely to be used on the billions of emails sent daily from people who aren't in full command of the English language or are too lazy to look at man pages. Aka regular LLM usage for normal people.

> US military must be the ones possessing and in control of the most advanced AI technology.

Except that in this case they aren't possessing or in control of it. They're just writing checks to a third party to use what they possess and control.

I do think that once we have real AI the government should be all over that, but I don't see much need for them getting too worked up over a chatbot with a tendency to outright lie. I'd certainly hope that they don't use OpenAI's questionable product for anything important or anything that would have a meaningful impact on people's lives. I wish that for every company actually, but when it comes to where bombs drop or who drones kill its really important to keep humans involved and to make sure your information is accurate.

For whom?

Exactly. Every American company should be proud to be a partner to the Pentagon. They don’t choose their missions but overall the world is a better place with American hegemony expressed through her military superiority. It would be a tragedy to lose hold of the world order because an arbitrary board disagrees with how congress uses them.

> overall the world is a better place with American hegemony expressed through her military superiority.

This seems like a non-falsifiable claim about the future, even if it can be argued for rationally with regard to the past.

Have you ever been somewhere that you needed to defend this belief rationally, or does it appear to you as self-evident?

I think we can evaluate how far the discourse is fallen by the reflex to attempt to hide questions that the hegemon's apologists don't like instead of answering them.

Perhaps this bullying attitude is one of the many reasons that most of the world does not feel that it's better off today with American hegemony.

Worse for who?