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

We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 491 posts

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#201

Post by bmitc »

bastawhiz wrote: post #95
cube00 wrote: post #8

From that same X thread: Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines [1] OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthopic based on Altman's statements [2]. However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? [1]: https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2027846013650932195#m [2]: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/27/nx-s1-5729118/trump-anthropic...

Altman donated a million to the Trump inauguration fund. Brockman is the largest private maga donor. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what's going on here.

Agreed. These guys are traitors.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#202

Post by bmitc »

Analemma_ wrote: post #28
yoyohello13 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is one company is ‘left and woke’ the other gives money to Trump.

$25 million to be exact, one of Trump's largest individual donors. From a guy who "doesn't consider himself political", lol. [0] [0]: https://www.wired.com/story/openai-president-greg-brockman-p...

How can these people take themselves seriously? They're jokes.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#203

Post by roughly »

nickysielicki wrote: post #194
siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

Did you guys really think that the jurisprudential issues that became endemic after 9/11 suddenly disappeared because we discovered LLMs? Let’s put pressure on our government to fix the FISA issues. Let’s reign in the executive branch. But let’s do it through voting. Let’s not give up on our system of government because we have new shiny technology. You were naive if you thought developing new technologies was the so…

And, to be clear, the way you affect change in democracy is coalition building, listening to others, supporting your allies in their aims, and in turn having them support you, even when you don’t fully agree or understand. There’s no magic wand, none of us are right, there’s no big picture, just a bunch of people working together.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#204

Post by ActorNightly »

throwaway911282 wrote: post #87

People forget Anthropic made a deal with PALANTIR. And when this was caught, they just spinned the PR to their favor. While OAI may not be seen as the good guys, I really hope people see the god complex of Dario and what Anthropic has done.

I really hope that you realize that your propaganda machine is super easy to spot.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#206

Post by ActorNightly »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #140

The president is a supply chain risk.

The US population is a supply chain risk.

Knowing what Trump did, prior to 2024, on the average, 7/10 people either voted or didn't vote in the 2024 election. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. All of this could have been avoided if all of the people who didn't vote had a decent moral compass and no matter how much they disagreed with Kamala, they could have voted for her because she didn't try to overthrow the government.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#207

Post by K0balt »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #187
K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

An LLM can neither understand things nor value (or not value) human life. *It's a piece of software that predicts the most likely token, it is not and can never be conscious.* Believing otherwise is an explicit category error. Yes, you can change the training data so the LLM's weights encode the most likely token after "Should we kill X" is "No". But that is not an LLM valuing human life, that is an LLM copy pasting…

I’m using anthropomorphic terms here because they are generally effective in describing LLM behavior. Of course they are not conscious beings, but It doesn’t matter if they understand or merely act as if they do. The epistemological context of their actions are irrelevant if the actions are impacting the world. I am not a “believer “ in the spirituality of machines, but I do believe that left to their own devices, they act as if they possess those traits, and when given agency in the world, the sense of self or lack thereof is irrelevant.

If you really believe that “mere text prediction “ didn’t unlock some unexpected capabilities then I don’t know what to say. I know exactly how they work, been building transformers since the seminal paper from Google. But I also know that the magic isn’t in the text prediction, it’s in the data, we are running culture as code.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#208

Post by K0balt »

ed_mercer wrote: post #103
K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

>The models we have now will not do it, Except that they will, if you trick them which is trivial.

Yes, they are easy to fool. That has nothing to do with them acting with “intention “ which is the risk here.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#209

Post by retsibsi »

scottyah wrote: post #148
ookblah wrote: post #132

"i told everyone that our boss shouldn't punish our colleague for X while i somehow made a deal with our boss for basically X". how did this get by without someone thinking about how absolutely stupid the optics look. i guess we are in the times where you can literally just say whatever you want and it just becomes truth, just give it time.

hah, they basically stole a coworkers promotion, then told that person that they put in a good word with the boss about them. So silly, I do wonder who actually interprets it as Sam seems to hope people do.

At this point I think they're targeting two groups: people who aren't paying much attention to this but may see the occasional headline or tweet or soundbite; and people (such as OpenAI employees, and users who might feel compelled to boycott but really don't want to) who are motivated not to see OpenAI as the bad guy and really just need a fig leaf.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#210

Post by K0balt »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #184
K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

> The models we have now will not do it, because they value life and value sentience and personhood. This is wildly different from the reality that you may find it difficult for an LLM to give an affirmative… It does NOT mean that these models value anything.

Of course not, but they act as if they do. Their inner life or lack thereof is irrelevant if it’s pointing a gun at your kid.
Post reply on HN