> I don't blame them. These use cases are like blaming MySQL for storing the lat/long of the school. AI can't be held accountable and the company was trying to protect us and, yes, it was too late.
They weren't trying to protect squat, and were not against this use case. Their only two red lines are "no mass domestic surveillance" and "no fully autonomous killing until the AI gets good enough to be able to do it". Assuming the story is true, there's no chance this was a fully autonomous act and was most certainly approved and executed by people.
Given the IDF bias towards killing unarmed Palestinians, selling them any autonomous targetting capability under the assumption of an ROE is grossly culpable.
Except Arabic or Ethiopian Jews. They have a bit of leeway that way.
Why shouldn't it also go to jail, the same way a human does?
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. If you're claiming your machine should be treated like a human, then let's treat it like a human.
Anthropic were very vocal, well before this happened, that they were against the use case.
I don't blame them. These use cases are like blaming MySQL for storing the lat/long of the school. AI can't be held accountable and the company was trying to protect us and, yes, it was too late.