The statement from OpenAI makes me feel that Sutskever was right; Altman is full of lies and will say anything for his own interests.
We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
271–280 of 491 posts
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what th…
[flagged]
law of triviality on full display
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#273[dead]
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#274The 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…
Take a step back: Americans voted for this. They want unaccountable police and courts for the Dirty Harry legal system: maximum indiscriminate violence against those designated as criminals.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#275Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.
there’s always someone in the world that will defend anything. Like the people working at OpenAI had no other choice than to pick this cushy job (some have salaries of 500k per year), instead of anything else. It’s an extreme personal opinion, but; all people working at OpenAI after this debacle are more than happy to make AI for war, because Food and Shelter. I find your comment fitting this forum, it is where all t…
Indeed, it is worth noting that Sam Altman got his chance through PG/YC and that YC was totally fine with both Musk and Zuckerberg giving them a platform long after it became evident that they had some screws loose in the ethics department.
Effectively the message is 'we don't mind you being an asshole, as long as you're rich'.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#277Then reject any offer from the DoW until things are fair.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sam sucked up 100% to the DoW with an NDA and an obligation to lie. He and his pal Larry are absolutely in for these kind of deals. Zero moral compass.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#278From what I can tell, the key difference between Anthropic and OpenAI in this whole thing is that both want the same contract terms, but Antropic wants to enforce those terms via technology, and OpenAI wants to enforce them by ... telling the Government not to violate them. It's telling that the government is blacklisting the company that wants to do more than enforce the contract with words on paper.
I think it's dumber than that; the terms of the contract, as posted by OpenAI ( https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-o... ), are basically just "all lawful purposes" plus some extra words that don't modify that in any significant way. > The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and ov…
> will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control
That says it all. Those laws get issued the same way the tariffs did.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#279Advanced 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…
> copy pasting it's training data
This is a total misrepresentation of how any modern LLM works, and your argument largely hinges upon this definition.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per levels.fyi, median salary of most openAI positions are above 300k. Even "technical writers" have a median pay of 197k. I searched around the internet and it seems like even entry level positions receive well above 150k. Apart from people with severe lifestyle bloat or an unholy number of dependents I doubt too many people working there will face immediate financial difficulties if they quit. Anyway, it is also am…
> OpenAI hires "technical writers" Mind blown. Isn't documentation a prime use case for "AI"?
Have you ever seen the back of your head, without a mirror? Without two mirrors, actually?
How can AI accurately describe itself in full?