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

Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 461 posts

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#71

Post by reactordev »

cheema33 wrote: post #68
mrandish wrote: post #57

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…

> OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets for itself." I believe this understanding is correct. The issue many people have these days with Dept. of War, and most of Trump admin is that they have little respect for laws. They only follow the ones they like and openly ignore the ones that are inconvenient. Dept of "War" should have zero problems agreeing to the two conditi…

I haven’t seen them follow a law yet

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#72

Post by hintymad »

Honest question: why do people automatically equate "fully autonomous weapons" to something like killer robot? My immediate reaction is that even the best-in-class rapid-fire gun has a hard time identifying and tracking drones. So, we'd need AI to do better tracking, which leads to a fully autonomous weapon. And I really don't get why that's a bad thing.

Of course, a company should have freedom to choose not to do business with the government. I just think that automatically assuming the worst intention of the government is not as productive as setting up good enough legal framework to limit government's power.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#73

Post by lesuorac »

trinsic2 wrote: post #69
nickthegreek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://gizmodo.com/palantir-ceo-says-a-surveillance-state-i... https://gizmodo.com/palantir-ceo-uses-slur-to-describe-peopl... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/palantir-ceo-defends-su...

Wow... See. I didn't even know it was this bad. You don't need much to silence these people that are supporting authoritarian collaborators.

I always just say Palantier is IBM 2.0

IBM of course has an problematic history.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#74

Post by felipeerias »

pfisherman wrote: post #37
6Az4Mj4D wrote: post #3

Leaving autonomous weapons aside, how does Anthropic justifies that they signed up with surveillance company Palantir and now raising concerns for same surveillance with DoD? It doesn't match.

This is very easy to explain. Anthropic outlines some limitations in their terms of service. Palantir accepted those terms. The DoD did not. OpenAI claims their terms of service for DoD contain the same limitations as Anthropics proposed service agreement. Anthropic claims that this is untrue. Now given that (a) the DoD terminated their deal with Anthropic, (b) stated that they terminated because Anthropic refused mo…

Are you sure about that? Every information I’ve seen suggests that the DoD has been using Anthropic’s models through Palantir.

My understanding is that Anthropic requested visibility and a say into how their models were being used for classified tasks, while the DoD wanted to expand the scope of those tasks into areas that Anthropic found objectionable. Both of those proposals were unacceptable for the other side.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#75

Post by trinsic2 »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #53

Like others have already mentioned: I think Anthropic's relationship with Palantir undermines Amodei's narrative here. It actually feels like Dario is playing Sam's game better than Sam is. Those who know better please correct me. My current understanding of Palantir (and other surveillance tech companies like Peregrine) is: 1. They facilitate the sale of data to law enforcement, enabling the government to circumvent…

It feels more like the are playing good cop/bad cop... There is just something indifferent about all of this that makes me wonder.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#76

Post by cfloyd »

It’s all just theatre. These companies will either give in or die off and be replaced by those who offer more freedom of use. It’s capitalism and while it’s not always pretty, it’s how these things go. Choosing to take what you believe as the moral high ground is noble but it does not put your company ahead of the ball in the long term because there are always those who will use that as an advantage to step on their backs.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#77

Post by jfengel »

spaghetdefects wrote: post #21
6Az4Mj4D wrote: post #3

Leaving autonomous weapons aside, how does Anthropic justifies that they signed up with surveillance company Palantir and now raising concerns for same surveillance with DoD? It doesn't match.

[flagged]

If they're doing it against the terms of service (and publicly so), I can't pin that one on Anthropic.

They've done lots wrong and maybe they shouldn't have gotten in bed with the military to begin with, but this illegal war is not theirs. It rests squarely with the President who declared it. (And with the military officers who are going along with it despite the violation of international law.)

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#78

Post by trinsic2 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #62
df2dfs wrote: post #8

What's there to discuss? OAI is seeking a hand-out from the govt to save their asses. They (Sam + top-management) see the writing on the wall and need help.

This. The OpenAI grift is to make itself too big to fail. They are playing a game of chicken ahead of the election circus. Trump must keep the market alive until November. Nvidia, Micron, Oracle, Microsoft are cooked when and if they pop.

IMHO everyone needs to cancel there subscriptions with all of the ai products until stuff blows over. I don't trust anyone in this industry.There is probably one person or one group behind all of these AI companies that just needs to keep the engine going until they figure out how to replace everyone with bots that can do the dirty work.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#79

Post by intrasight »

hintymad wrote: post #72

Honest question: why do people automatically equate "fully autonomous weapons" to something like killer robot? My immediate reaction is that even the best-in-class rapid-fire gun has a hard time identifying and tracking drones. So, we'd need AI to do better tracking, which leads to a fully autonomous weapon. And I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Of course, a company should have freedom to choose not to do bu…

We all do business with the government. We pay the military to protect our gold. It is fundamentally a protection racket that we voted for. And one could argue that the military, as the protector of your gold, has the final decision as to what it can and can't do with your technology.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#80

Post by unethical_ban »

hintymad wrote: post #72

Honest question: why do people automatically equate "fully autonomous weapons" to something like killer robot? My immediate reaction is that even the best-in-class rapid-fire gun has a hard time identifying and tracking drones. So, we'd need AI to do better tracking, which leads to a fully autonomous weapon. And I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Of course, a company should have freedom to choose not to do bu…

Please define what kind of fully autonomous weapons system the Pentagon would build wouldn't be designed to kill people.

For that matter, explain why the Pentagon would balk at not spying on every American.

Post reply on HN