The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Department of Defense’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. OpenAI, the parent company of the popular chatbot platform ChatGPT, has made changes to its usage policy, lifting the prohibition on using their technology for “military and warfare” purposes. Previously, OpenAI’s policy strictly banned the use of its technology for weapons development and military applications. However, the policy has now been updated to only disallow use that would bring harm to others. OpenAI clarified that their tools are not intended for harming people, developing weapons, communications surveillance, or causing injury or property destruction.
The updated policy allows OpenAI to collaborate closely with the military, a move that has generated division within the company. Christopher Alexander, the chief analytics officer of Pioneer Development Group, believes that the concern about AI becoming too powerful or uncontrollable within the military is misplaced. He argues that the most likely use of OpenAI’s technology is for routine administrative and logistics work, which can lead to significant cost savings for taxpayers and enhanced effectiveness on the battlefield.
While AI technology continues to advance, there are growing concerns about its potential dangers. Last year, hundreds of tech leaders and public figures signed an open letter warning about the risks of AI leading to an extinction event. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was among those who signed the letter, indicating the company’s commitment to limiting the dangerous potential of AI.
However, experts argue that OpenAI’s collaboration with the military was inevitable, considering the rising prominence of AI in future battlefields. Adversaries like China are already focusing on AI’s role in military endeavors. Phil Siegel, founder of the Center for Advanced Preparedness and Threat Response Simulation, suggests that the US government likely influenced OpenAI’s policy change to prevent adversaries from using AI technology against domestic assets.
While the need for AI capabilities in defense is acknowledged, caution must be exercised to address concerns about the runaway AI problem. Jon Schweppe, Director of the American Principles Project, emphasizes the importance of safeguards to prevent AI from being used against domestic assets or turning against its operator.
The revised policy by OpenAI has sparked skepticism among some critics. Jake Denton, a Research Associate at Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, questions the company’s ethics and highlights the lack of transparency in OpenAI’s black-box models. Denton argues that transparency should be a crucial aspect of any future defense contracts involving AI technology.
As the Pentagon explores potential partnerships with AI companies, Denton emphasizes that transparency and explainability should be prioritized in matters of national security.
In conclusion, OpenAI’s decision to revise its usage policy to allow military collaboration has stirred controversy and division within the company. While some argue that AI technology can enhance military capabilities and save lives, others express concerns about potential risks and the need for transparency in defense applications.
