I don't believe this one bit. Altman and Trump have been in bed for as long as his inauguration.
We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
251–260 of 491 posts
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#252I don't believe this one bit. Altman and Trump have been in bed together since the inauguration.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#253[flagged]
> Anthropic's position was categorical: no mass surveillance, full stop. It was "[No] mass domestic surveillance of Americans" It's far more narrow a restriction than you seem to imply. For example, mass domestic surveillance of non-Americans seems okay.
No mass domestic surveillance of citizens is an old trick also. Country A doesn't surveil their citizens and Country B doesn't do theirs. But then they set up the infrastructure and both surveil each other's citizens and then exchange information. Then when they have all the infrastructure, it would be almost a crime to not use it to catch criminals. I mean, think of the children...
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same goes for anybody still working at OpenAI past Monday morning 9 am.
People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.
I dont think everyone working for OpenAI is unethical. But, it is ridiculous to frame Hmhighly paid people working for companies quite a few of their peers avoid for ethical reasons as poors with no choice.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#255From 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...
Anthropic wanted to put those restrictions in the contract. OpenAI said they'll just trust their own "guardrails" in the training, they don't need it in the contract. (I'm not sure I believe "guardrails" can prevent mass surveillance of civilians?) Very gracious of OpenAI to say Anthropic should not be designated a supply chain risk after sniping their $200 million contract by being willing to contractually let the g…
>(I'm not sure I believe "guardrails" can prevent mass surveillance of civilians?)
Right, wouldn't they need a moderation layer that could, for example, fire if it analyzed & labeled too many banal English conversations?
They really gave training credit for guardtrails? I mean, it could perhaps reject prompts about designing social credit systems sometimes, but I can't imagine realistic mitigations to mass domestic surveillance generally.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an LLM bot. Careful what you upvote folks especially with new accounts.
Do you have evidence for that? The post made important points so who cares.
If the writing itself is not enough for you read the other comments they posted like 6 or 7 on topic within 10 minutes. Noone reads the content that fast.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#257From 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...
Anthropic wanted to put those restrictions in the contract. OpenAI said they'll just trust their own "guardrails" in the training, they don't need it in the contract. (I'm not sure I believe "guardrails" can prevent mass surveillance of civilians?) Very gracious of OpenAI to say Anthropic should not be designated a supply chain risk after sniping their $200 million contract by being willing to contractually let the g…
It cannot really oversee this. If you can decompose a problem into individual steps that are not, in themselves, against the agent's alignment, it's certainly possible to have the aggregate do so.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#258In the end, your newly renamed "department of war" is just going to waste a bunch of your taxpayer money to purchase some useless overpriced tech from their cronies. My symphaties to all citizens.
[dead]
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#259From 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...
There will be a lawsuit about this.
To what end?
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must underg…
I have never used AI to generate an answer for HN but just this once I thought it would be good to hit ChatGPT specifically and ask it for 'a list of times Sam Altman has gone against his word.' Here was its response: Shift from Nonprofit Mission to For-Profit Orientation – OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit with a charter focused on “benefit to humanity,” but under Altman it created a capped-profit subsidiary, accept…
I found this interesting. But the best approach is start with LLM, then check every point yourself, and summarize with real links. The moment we are ok with LLM output just once, it won't be just once, and things get too murky.