- andallthat@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
To be fair, the prompt was “what shade of gold should the curtains be in my new ballroom?”
[ Reasoning… The user wants me to initiate a war with Iran… Firing 2000 missiles on random objectives… Done. Back to undressing kids on X… ]
8 daysSerious answer, I heard somewhere that apparently it’s common to start a war with an attack that will get the population of the opposing country angry. Killing children is an effective way to do that. If I remember correctly, the point is to get the country to attack back, so you can better justify the war to your own population.
- Blue_Morpho@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
That makes no sense. You are already at war. You have already justified it. Getting the other country to defend harder is not what you want. You want to win.
Bombing a school wasn’t 5D chess by Trump. It was incompetence.
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense to build the justification after attacking. It takes time for people to actually show their disagreement in a way that hurts the state and they’re quick to forget once an attack hits them. Also, it still makes sense for the state to build further justifications even if they’ve already justified it. For this instance in particular, I don’t think there really was any justification and if I remember correctly, the population heavily disagrees with this war.
I also think it’s a big mistake to equate everything that the state does under Trump to him just being stupid, it makes you blind to what’s actually being planned and carried out. You should always try to analyze what the intent behind actions like this is and only if you can’t find any reasons at all is it maybe justified to say it’s just the government being stupid.
- Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish8 days
And the DoJ is trying to prevent xAI from having to go through a current lawsuit over their unlicensed gas turbines, because they power the data centers for Grok.
Brazen corruption and ineptitude from top to bottom.
- Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish8 days
Is there a term for “lying by imprecise wording likely to be interpreted in a more serious way that what is actually the supportable message”? Because this headline is such a prime example.
When you read this it sounds like Grok fired missiles in some way. But the actually supportable message is that it was used in target selection, and its speed enabled the missile attack to reach such a scale in a short time frame.
Edit: Not that I think that’s good or anything, don’t get me wrong. I’m just railing against the shoddy journalism, despite the horrifying content.
- LotrOrc@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
No it really doesnt. It reads as though they used Grok in the shooting of 2000 missiles. If you thought they just gave Grok control of the missiles and Grok went off like a 10 year old on Call of Duty then idk what to say.
I would say this is just as bad as Grok having actual control though, as I doubt these fools in charge double checked anything Grok put out about targets, hence the killing of 168 school girls on the first day.
But for months they’ve been reporting theyre using AI to choose targets im not sure why this would be any different.
