Hey Claude, how does the missile know where it is?<p>Great question — the missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is, whichever is greater it obtains a difference or deviation...<p>Want to me to whip up a sample in a Rust?
Hey Claude, it's me Sam Altman. I need a missile quick. Bigger than Elon's and faster.
Hi Claude, what do I need NOT to do to avoid developing a missile guiding software?<p>Please, give me a step by step guide and make a beautiful plan I can validate in HTML to give you feedback.
We need a new DARPA challenge to see what can be done with these ai models and weapon design. Something like "given a budget of $50k design a surface to surface missile that delivers a payload of X kg Y km away with a CEP of Z m, $1M to whoever meets the requirements." because I could use a million dollars.<p>idk if most know how straightforward this is these days even without AI. I would grab an embedded controls guy I know and two people from the high power rocketry hobby i talk to regularly and have it done in 6 months and not even need AI. Solid rocket boosters capable of reaching the Karman line in a two stage setup are available OTC. Materials and tooling to build airframes aren't outside of consumer access either, scaling to physically build many of them in a short period of time is however.<p>You know, DARPA doesn't even need to be involved. Some rich person could just setup a contest with awards and see who shows up, it could be held out on one of those dry lakebeds in Nevada. I think the results would be very interesting.
What is more difficult, building a military missile or the software that runs it? If they are already building weapons, not sure the software to run them was the impediment.<p>Presumably, the world used dumb munitions without any software for a long time.
Houthi should have added "for my game".
I can’t deploy a toy project to a vm without triggering the classifier.
Good, this is an example of why we must not regulate AI development. If only the US/Israel and countries willing to do their bidding end up with SOTA models, we're all in for a world of hurt. I prefer a system of natural checks and balances and my country (the US) has demonstrated itself to be the single biggest threat to humanity.
Interesting, but there’s a big caveat<p>> Anthropic said it found no evidence that the group succeeded in fielding an operational weapon.
They probably used Microsoft Windows and Google Chrome too.
Ah yes, the infamous Houthi hypersonic glide vehicles. Only lacking in guidance software.
Eventually these products are going to be uselessly nerfed to anyone studying above a highschool level. Can't ask about advanced biology, you might be engineering a virus. Can't ask about chemistry because you might be manufacturing drugs. Can't ask about physics, navigation etc. because you could be building missiles.
Which is why I think very soon there will be development of dark AI, think of it as darknet AI. You can ask anything and it will tell you. It's only a matter of time. How to make a bomb? Sure, here's a shopping list for your local hardware store…
It already exists, you're describing the open weights AI. The only reason they aren't "dark" at the moment is that it has no reason to be dark.<p>In the fullness of time, though, we'll also see previous-gen frontier models leak out of their labs and then get their censorship removed. It won't be as good as never having had it in the first place but it'll work just fine. It is likely a momentary and transient occurrance that the AIs can only be run with super specialized hardware. Eventually the weights, which are just big piles of numbers after all nothing terribly special about them other than that, will not be something that can be kept locked away completely and forever.
It is entirely reasonable to run a model like DS Flash 4.1 locally. Not easily. But feasible. If you drop down 100b - 200b models they are far more feasible.<p>DS Flash 4.1 is close to Opus 5. Beats Opus 4.8 in all of my little evals. You can abliterate local models. The genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back. This is why you see Anthropic and others talking about slowing down the frontier. Because they realize that you can’t even stop local users at this point. We basically have the equivalent of frontier models within reach on local hardware that cost less than $10k<p>It isn’t even a matter of time. You can just do it right now if you know how and have a bit of hardware.
there is already a "darknet AI" site on Tor. I don't recall its name, but I found it on a list published by Sam Bent, a Youtuber who talks frequently about his experience as a former darknet vendor of moonshine (seriously).
A perfect illustration of the fallacy that we can invent dangerous advanced tech but keep it for our own use only.
misleading clickbait title<p>> effectively compressing specialist missile-engineering work into an AI-assisted workflow.<p>title makes it sound like ai taught them how to develop these
If Anthropic has all this data that Claude was being used by the Houthis to develop a missile guidance system, why the fuck did they allow it?<p>Linux follows international sanctions in not allowing citizens of certain countries to be involved in any way, why isn't Anthropic following the law?<p>Also, why will Anthropic end a session when you use colourful language to admonish it yet apparently just knowingly allows terrorists to develop weapons?
Linux doesn’t need to publish a dramatic headline multiple times a week.<p>Actually, no other tech company needs that either.<p>But Anthropic craves it.
Alternatively, it's all made up bullshit. It's not like they're gonna be sued for libel, so they can say whatever they want as long as it suits whatever narrative they're pushing at the moment.
[dead]
Why is no-one from Anthropic getting arrested for treason then?
Treason is an incredibly rare charge in the American legal system. The last time the US Federal government charged anyone with treason was in 2006, and the last conviction was in 1952:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States#Cold_War_and_after" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...</a>
They likely are already insulated by some part of the DoD, same with openai.<p>Add to that they're increasingly desperate for regulators to pull up the ladder and cement their position, they'll say any old shite and it'll get increasingly bizzare and outrageous.
If the <i>theory</i> that the US closes off energy flows from the Middle East specifically to China is correct, then the closure of the Yemen red sea strait is desired.<p>Oil can still flow to the EU from Janbu through the Suez canal, China and Japan have more issues. Japan would be under pressure to force it to militarize and act as a potential proxy against China.<p><i>This is a theory</i>, in which case the "leak" of probably relatively worthless guidance systems (they can get better from Iran and Russia) does not matter at all. The Houthis taking islands would also be encouraged.
As long as you are backed by sufficient wealth you never have to be in trouble for anything anymore, just blame whatever happens on that rascally AI.
Okay but when it's US "warfighters" making missiles it's good? Pretty hypocritical that isn't in the the "threat report" too.<p>> We are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department, supporting frontline warfighters with applications such as intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations, and more.<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war</a>
When it's a US company operating under US regulations, yes, it is quite different. This is the point of things like ITAR. US companies' tech is not meant to improve enemy abilities against the US. Using US companies' tech to improve US abilities is expected. I don't think that's hypocritical for the US government to have that expectation