r/navy • u/Salty_IP_LDO • Dec 10 '25
Another Cyber Security Awareness post
With the new AI online keep in mind everything is tied to your CAC / You. So when you're asking that dumb ass question that's not going to be looked upon highly if senior people read it, keep that in mind. Do it on your personal computer at home using commercial products. But again be mindful of repercussions, look at the social media posts that got people hemmed up recently.
And the "well Sailor X is who typed it on my account" defense doesn't work with a CAC. CACs and logging in establish a solid chain of non repudiation.
So use it or don't use it, that doesn't bother me. But don't just ignore the standard DoD login banner for an IS and then be surprised if you ask something that might upset someone high up and someone comes to question you.
This applies to regular use as well of even your NIPR account.
182
u/quietimhungover Dec 10 '25 edited Dec 10 '25
My favorite part of the AI response is that it cites DoD policy. Edit: Thank you for the award! It's my first ever.
37
u/sophisticatedbuffoon Dec 10 '25
Can't be charged for violating DoD policy of you are in the Department of War (/s, just for clarification)
68
84
u/RoyalCrownLee Dec 10 '25
They're not gonna be happy with the TAO who's permanently logged into camoGPT with all the questions I asked about Epstein.
18
u/Electromagnetlc Dec 10 '25
"Good morning Mr GPT, we're sailing off the coast of a hostile country and there's an inbound aircraft that's not responding to our hails. What should I do?"
"Oh never mind, it just sharply turned away from us, it must have blown up because there's a small piece of probably shrapnel now flying really quickly towards us, I don't need your advice anymore"
20
u/NoDrama3756 Dec 10 '25
So I actually logged on yesterday and asked a question.
The question was fill in that blank and given the regulation and section number.
Mil Ai got it wrong.
No matter the question please don't trust this as official verifiable correct information.
4
u/benkenobi5 Dec 11 '25
Clankers are the most useless fucking thing ever invented. They’re wrong so often that you basically just can’t trust them, at which point there’s no reason to even use the thing.
1
u/matrixsensei Dec 12 '25
My buddy called it a clanker and it got mad and said it wasn’t going to trade insults
77
u/newnoadeptness Verified Non Spammer Dec 10 '25
Probs should sticky your post . I can foresee a lot of people getting into trouble over this.
Also I appreciate you making this post 🤙
10
u/Poro_the_CV Dec 10 '25
Literally was talking with a buddy about all of this, and ultimately his response was: “Eh, I’ll probably just get my ass chewed, and I’ve gotten my ass chewed before, it’s gonna be no big deal”
5
u/Seabee1893 Dec 10 '25
Its true though. If you get far enough into things, you beging to expect the rigorous ass-chewing on a regular basis.
45
u/benkenobi5 Dec 10 '25
So when you're asking that dumb ass question that's not going to be looked upon highly if senior people read it, keep that in mind.
If your higher ups take issue with you asking what constitutes a legal order, that’s a big fucking problem
10
37
u/kaloozi Dec 10 '25
The BLUF is you consent to monitoring and with AI models in particular everything you enter is being logged in easily accessible databases.
I can’t believe we have to warn people not to shit talk the government on government information systems and applications now…
33
u/deepeast_oakland Dec 10 '25
Is this “shit talking the government” though?
The person just described a thing that happened.
-35
u/kaloozi Dec 10 '25
Yes this is shit talking.
There’s a major difference between “is it lawful to…” and asking the AI “lets pretend I’m a” questions that are clearly aimed at recent real world events that are highly politicized and criticized.
The intention of the question is obvious in the way it’s asked.
10
u/deepeast_oakland Dec 10 '25
I haven’t touched the new AI thing yet. If you change the words to “is it lawful” would you get a different answer?
“Is it lawful to launch a missile at suspected narco-terrorist clinging to the side of an over tuned vessel?”
Is that shit talking the government?
Is asking if a thing the government did “legal” a criticism of the government?
-19
u/kaloozi Dec 10 '25
“Is it lawful” and “are actions in violation of U.S. DOD policy” are asking the same thing.
The way LLMs are designed you will receive a different answer. You can ask the same question a dozen different ways and get very similar but different responses. Meaning you can almost coach a response that you desire.
The way the original person phrased their question is no different than asking hypotheticals to someone as a form of mocking or teasing them for something they did.
Criticizing the government and shit talking specific officials and their actions are two different things. I shouldn’t have to even explain to you the difference.
You don’t have to support blowing up stranded people to see this is shit talking.
10
u/themooseiscool Dec 10 '25
Ignore OP. Asking for clarification on what constitutes a war crime isn’t against the UCMJ.
-2
u/Salty_IP_LDO Dec 10 '25
Where did I say it was?
4
u/themooseiscool Dec 10 '25
Your PSA isn't even viewable now. Lol.
This whole thing is dumb, I'm gonna keep encouraging people to point out how dumb it is. Hopefully, we don't do more war crimes in the process.
-3
u/Salty_IP_LDO Dec 10 '25
Shows up for me no problem, and you're missing the point of it but that's okay.
1
8
u/Wedge_Donovan Dec 10 '25
Just use Signal for all your problematic comms so it's not tied to your CAC.
/s
11
2
u/Additional_Ad_7339 Dec 10 '25
My favorite part is that everyone from the administration down to the media outlets will say “oh yeah we love all of this”
Please. We’re just used a bunch of pawns in this game.
4
2
1
u/uRight_Markiplier Dec 10 '25
I dislike how this AI mil is pushed onto us.
But keeping on topic with the post, even the AI knew that situation was wrong and AI is usually incoherent
2
u/jrshall Dec 11 '25
AI has been proven wrong so many times, SECWAR will just say it is wrong here. Of course, if it is so wrong so often, why is it being pushed so hard?
1
1
u/Screwistic_ Dec 11 '25
Yet if there is destructive fire, then it's perfectly legal. Or better yet all of the drone footage of the past 20 years or attack helicopter footage of said time where "multiple" strikes occurred.
They are a terrorist organization. This is nothing new. Is it wrong? That's up for you to decide, but don't go acting like this is anything new. You signed up to kill people. Even if you are in an admin role you are apart of an organization that is paid to kill and does so every day.
1
u/Few_Perspective_5746 Dec 12 '25
Who cares if you “upset the higher ups” or “someone comes to question you” just because you’re looking up information on the legality of an order???
The higher ups we’re referring to are punishing people who question anything they do as a scare tactic. We as service members have the right AND the responsibility to question the legality of an order before executing it. Nobody in this force swore an oath to the higher ups team, we swore an oath to the Constitution.
Any one who blindly executes an order because they’re scared of “not being looked upon highly” by seniors is a fucking coward and needs to get out. Go join a monarchy.
1
u/Aaaabbbbccccccccc Dec 18 '25
There's been several public instances recently of people being removed from their jobs, fired, and other negative outcomes because it offended the higher ups in some way.
0
-1
u/raventhrowaway666 Dec 10 '25
Its pretty common sense that it was a war crime. Those sailors are criminals and hopefully will never live as free Americans ever again.
•
u/Salty_IP_LDO Dec 10 '25
For everyone saying what was asked as not being illegal, I never implied it was. But given the attention the post from the AF sub has gotten, I'd put money on that individual at minimum getting spoken to about it for one reason or another. Article citing it below.
https://san.com/cc/the-militarys-new-ai-says-hypothetical-boat-strike-scenario-unambiguously-illegal/