Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#331

Post by dylan604 »

LZ_Khan wrote: post #272
bnr-ais wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic had the largest IP settlement ($1.5 billion) for stolen material and Amodei repeatedly predicted mass unemployment within 6 months due to AI. Without being bothered about it at all. It is a horrible and ruthless company and hearing a presumably rich ex-employee painting a rosy picture does not change anything.

At least they're paying. OpenAI should have the largest IP settlement, they just would rather contest it and not pay for eternity.

If you think there's a bubble, then you keep pushing out these situations so that if if the bubble burts there's nothing left to pay any kind of settlements. The only time companies pay a settlement is if they think they are going to get hit with a much larger payout from a court case going against them. Even then, there's chances to appeal the amounts in the ruling. Dear Leader did this very thing.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#332

Post by gclawes »

jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use.

Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#333

Post by jwpapi »

Am i the only one who understands the deparments position? Like if another country will have it without safeguards, why would I not want it without safeguards. I can still be the safeguard, but having safeguards enforced by another entity that potentially has to face negative financial consequences seems like a disadvantage, would be weird to accept that as department of war.

I understand the risk, but that is the pill.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#334

Post by dylan604 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #261
lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

mark my words, they will burn at some point. The government can nationalize it at any moment if they desire.

Would anyone pull a Pied Piper and choose to destroy the thing rather than let it be subverted? I know that's not exactly what PP did, but would a decision like that only ever happen in fiction?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#335

Post by gclawes »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #285
calvinmorrison wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.

Note that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.

The government should be entitled to any lawful use of a product they purchase, not uses dictated solely by the provider. It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is, it's not up to these companies to dictate.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#336

Post by lucaslazarus »

gclawes wrote: post #332
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

[flagged]

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#337

Post by theptip »

gclawes wrote: post #332
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#338

Post by bdangubic »

gclawes wrote: post #332
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

[flagged]

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#339

Post by tehjoker »

The framing of this is that the United States conducts legitimate operations overseas, but that is extremely far from the truth. It treats China as a foreign adversary, which is nearly purely the framing from the U.S. side as an aggressor.

AI should never be used in military contexts. It is an extremely dangerous development.

Look at how US ally Israel used non-LLM AI technology "The Gospel" and "Lavender" to justify the murder of huge numbers of civilians in their genocide of Palestinians.

Post reply on HN