Milley actually didn't even say the quote that we're discussing. An unidentified man did.
The meaning of the quote in the context of the exchange where it was made is not entirely clear, I agree with you on that. The headline exploits this uncertainty. The reader's (i.e., me) biases fill in the blanks.
For all we know, the guy was just trying to impress a woman. He could be nothing more than a researcher manning a both, making a bizarre claim at a bizarre conference. His reference to "Oppenheimer" could even be about the film and not the actual man.
Pardon me for your time. I can see why this story is getting so much criticism.
The very elements that you use to argue for why the quote is being taken out of context can be spun around in favor of the interpretation that it is not.
- Many hold the notion that the threat of AI is similar to that of nuclear weapons.
- Gen. Mark Milley is one of the key “characters” in the author's account of their time at Palantir’s conference showcasing its warfare AI.
- Milley works in Nuclear research at Los Alamos, like Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was the lab’s director. Milley’s exact role with the lab isn’t mentioned and I couldn’t verify his exact position, but the present day iteration of the lab is ran by someone else.
- A key theme of the story is how oblivious some key attendants and organizers are of the potential damage that warfare AI will have.
- It can be argued that those in attendance are primarily interested in developing the means to victory on the battlefield at any cost that can be rationalized by credentialed minds. A parallel can be made between warfare AI today and the development of nuclear weapons during WWII.
- Milley is comparing himself to Oppenheimer. He probably does not mean the he is the present director of the Los Alamos laboratory. It’s arguable that he is saying so in an attempt to amuse the author, much to the author's distaste. Note the pop culture references, the author's internal and external jabs in response, and the offering of state department swag (the pens and stickers).
> “Have you seen Oppenheimer?” he asked.
>
> No, I said, but I’d read The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
>
> I thought he was going to talk about the hubris of people who build weapons of war.
>
> Instead, he told me he works in nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos laboratory. Reaching into his backpack, he handed me a few Los Alamos pens and stickers.
These paragraphs and another half paragraph before the actual quote appears in the body of the article set the stage well enough to suffice for context.
A bystander may or may not make the same connections if they were to overhear this conversation as it happened, but an attentive reader can due to the privilege of having intimate knowledge of everything that took place before the exchange and a few details outside of it.
Whether it's conveyed via the actual conversation, or against the backdrop of the author’s publicized impressions during the conference and other elements that exist beyond it, the quote is not positioned inappropriately.
We have to remember that this article is not a traditional “news story”, it is a subjective account. The connections that make the quote noteworthy may not be found by all and sundry, but I’m confident that the Guardian has a feel for its readership and the sentiment that they and others will have about their stance on AI, Palantir, warfare, etc. prior to reading the piece.
I think the literary element at play is something like irony.
Can the quote be taken “entirely out of context” if the context itself isn’t “entirely clear”? Or does your interpretation of the quote and its meaning differ from the author’s?
The fragments you chose don't sound hyperbolic, they sound like a subjective account. I'm curious how you made it so far without being able to get a feel for why the author would describe the event how they did.
This is thorough contemplation. Time and time again we are reminded that no idea is wholly original in and of itself, down to the most minute aspect of its thought all the way through to its physical manifestation...Yet hubris, for many, prevails over these evidences. Ah.
At first I wanted to criticize this comment as being a gross oversimplification of the city’s crime rates. After some thought though, there is a lot to be desired from the author’s when it comes down to contextualizing the data.
I mean, can the notion of safety really be relayed by showing a person a bar graphs and telling them to avoid the tall cities?
Apparently this is a hobby project though, so I think I’m expecting too much.
This reads like a press release for the study instead of a news story about the contents of the study itself. Online web articles have the distinct privilege to the business of news publications and disadvantage to the readers by being able to achieve this. I really hope that this did not appear in the print edition, or at least appeared in a lengthier format. I had to double check to make sure that this wasn't paywalled.
I don't have anything against your decision to share this though. Evidently I was curious. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the study actually addresses "why" people make music, but just studies the shared characteristics of music across cultures.
Dr. Polak raises a good point, as do you. Concerns over the mechanization of research are valid. But there are domains (such as yours) where they are useful. The humanities may suffer.
I don't feel that jargon, legalese and newspeak are going to vanish. On the contrary, the value of these words may actually increase due to the appeal that they possess by way of gesturing toward authority, virtue and the like. There is a likelihood that AI will only contribute to their proliferation, just in the same terse manner that you are describing. Densely packed compositions of inarticulate gobbledygook that serves none, yet is served by many.
We are on the cusp of a fissure in the field of knowledge work led by AI tools. I'm inclined toward the more manual labor that favors a dextrous approach to "information overload" but there are opportunities to leverage these tools as a sort of valve for copious amounts of information as well. The technology isn't going to go anywhere, so hopefully this is Elicit is a useful product that will serve the interest of the conscientious.
And interestingly enough based on a study co-written by one Jordan Peterson, who I don't know much about except for his idiosyncratic diet, but others may have more substantial impressions of his work.
> “Getting swamped by new information that you have difficulty handling may predispose you to a mental disorder,” Carson says. “But if you have high intelligence and a good working memory, you are more likely to be able to combine bits of new information in creative ways.”
I may be betraying a certain level of cultural literacy for the bulk HN demographic but the original tweet reminds me of when popular online vixens (e.g., Instagram models) talk about “who slid into their DMs”.
As susceptible this news story is to humorous takes, I worry that this may soon affect honest seamen and others aboard vessels 50 feet long and below. Or is it happening already but it’s not being mentioned because the yacht stories are juicier? This is troubling.