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

321–330 of 461 posts

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

#321

Post by hyttioaoa »

navaed01 wrote: post #318

To play devils advocate - why should a government supplier and private company (Anthropic) and 1 man there - get to decide what an organization with elected officials can and can’t do? Dario has no idea of threats facing the US and where national security needs to go. Dario has personal views on weapons and surveillance- that’s fine but national defense tactics by their nature is something many people are uncomfortab…

He doesn't get to decide that. But he can decide what he wants to do, just as you can decide what to do with your time and resources.

Also, that very much sounds like the government knows best and citizens should just trust it unconditionally.

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

#322

Post by don_esteban »

wilg wrote: post #301
don_esteban wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Skill issue Money issue. This is not level playing ground, the field is severely tilted. The referee is bought. But you are saying: You lost fair and square, wait 4 years to have any say in what is going on. Re: THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in. When the choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the public's choice is meaningless. To say nothing about politicians outright shamelessly lying (e.g. Trum…

Money issue is also a skill issue, but I have no doubt in the era of free media someone could figure it out. Sorry I didn't invent the idea that there are federal elections every two years, I'm just telling you that you have to win them. Bonus points: this is also how you can change the election schedule or political system! If you're saying both candidates were bad when one was Trump, and the other was Hillary, Kama…

I agree that Clinton/Harris/Biden are not equally bad as Trump.

Trump is monstrously bad (= force the shit hitting the fan NOW), the democratic alternatives were just 'normally' bad (= continue the same old crap driving the shit closer to the fan, ignoring the looming disaster).

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

#323

Post by gck1 »

navaed01 wrote: post #318

To play devils advocate - why should a government supplier and private company (Anthropic) and 1 man there - get to decide what an organization with elected officials can and can’t do? Dario has no idea of threats facing the US and where national security needs to go. Dario has personal views on weapons and surveillance- that’s fine but national defense tactics by their nature is something many people are uncomfortab…

Claude is Anthropic's property which they rent to the government. Is there any other place where rental agreements don't come with clauses on how the property can and can't be used?

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

#324

Post by don_esteban »

wilg wrote: post #314
don_esteban wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) He did not win primaries, in significant part also because DNC was heavily against him. The level playing field thing. 2) If he won the primaries, there is still no guarantee that that would have amounted to anything. First, he might not have won the elections (mainstream media and the whole ruling elites were heavily against him). And even if he won, he might not have been able to do much against the permanent st…

Everything you're saying here is the exact delusional cynicism that got us here. Stop.

Yes, my stance is cynical.

Sadly, it is also factually correct (i.e. not delusional).

Which of my statements are you contesting?

From my point of view, your stance (play fairly, according to the rules set by your stronger opponent) is delusional. Note that the opponent is not 'republicans', but the whole ruling elites.

And no, I can't help you, I am not USian, just an outside observer. Sadly, due to its weight, whatever USA does, heavily influences everybody else as well.

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

#325

Post by taurath »

vanillameow wrote: post #295
neya wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically he's asking everyone to trust him that he won't cross the line himself. Whatever argument he makes for democracies applies to him as well, and he's not somehow above it. That's the flaw in his argument. Brutally honest, to me it just sounds like a very elaborate way to say "trust me, bro"

I would agree if not for the fact that they just let a $200M contract slip through over it. You could argue it's "safety theater" in itself but that seems like a risky gambit especially with this administration. I definitely trust Anthropic more than OpenAI. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's probably pretty imperative that Anthropic stays a frontrunner in this race and doesn't leave the field exclusively to OAI (a…

What does $200m mean for someone who thinks a trillion in revenue is likely among AI companies in the next 5 years? Which is a real quote.

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

#326

Post by vanillameow »

taurath wrote: post #325
vanillameow wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree if not for the fact that they just let a $200M contract slip through over it. You could argue it's "safety theater" in itself but that seems like a risky gambit especially with this administration. I definitely trust Anthropic more than OpenAI. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's probably pretty imperative that Anthropic stays a frontrunner in this race and doesn't leave the field exclusively to OAI (a…

What does $200m mean for someone who thinks a trillion in revenue is likely among AI companies in the next 5 years? Which is a real quote.

Regardless, I think if you are thinking purely from a ruthless business standpoint then standing up to the DoD was an incredibly ill-advised move. It's basically free financial and technological backing at the cost of ethics. Additionally, basically everyone with functioning eyeballs knows that the current US administration is incredibly vindicative, reckless and short-tempered. I would agree that in a more tame administration, you might do something like this as a publicity stunt. In the Trump administration, and while the AI arms race is still in full force, it feels like there has to be at least somewhat genuine sentiment behind it, otherwise it just doesn't really make sense. Like what do they accomplish from this? You'll get some users who will view you more favourably for it but it probably won't make up for the lost revenue, and no matter how many people like you, if you are first to AGI in this industry you win. The prior sentiment basically won't matter at that point. In the most critical interpretation I guess you could say if the bubble pops it might be more of a matter of sentiment. I don't know, in my mind the math just doesn't work for it to be a business move.

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

#327

Post by ExoticPearTree »

don_esteban wrote: post #294
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not see Iran winning this. The current government is also hated by the people who would very much like to see all of them dead. Al Jazeera has some very good insights into this, and the gist of it is: the Iranian regime is in a fight for its life with nothing to lose. If they are degraded enough, a revolution will start in Iran and they will be killed by the people. Or by US/IL bombs - whichever comes first. The…

Regarding Iran's future: You are describing Libya scenario, not a 'lived prosperously ever after'. There is no credible opposition in Iran to take the mantle.

No. Iran has almost all of its population part of the same ethnic group, which in Libya it was not true: all the tribes started fighting each other.

It does not an established opposition because the current regime has the habit of killing anyone it doesn't like or goes against the official line. Now there is a chance for opposition to form.

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

#328

Post by digitalPhonix »

navaed01 wrote: post #318

To play devils advocate - why should a government supplier and private company (Anthropic) and 1 man there - get to decide what an organization with elected officials can and can’t do? Dario has no idea of threats facing the US and where national security needs to go. Dario has personal views on weapons and surveillance- that’s fine but national defense tactics by their nature is something many people are uncomfortab…

You have a car (I assume, replace “car” with whatever else if not).

The government asks if they can rent your car. I hope we agree that you don’t have to say yes. (Specific exceptions exist to places of lodging etc.)

Anthropic is exercising their right to say no in the same way.

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

#329

Post by uxcolumbo »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #287
sixothree wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that this department claims its adversaries are Americans. Do you think antropic should aid in the killing of Americans?

I don’t believe for a second the Pentagon sees Americans as adversaries.

Trump sees many Americans as adversaries (i.e. the 'radical left' like Alex Pretti an ER nurse and Renee Nicole Good - a mother). In his first term he asked whether protestors can be shot in the legs.

So in short it doesn't matter what the Pentagon thinks as Trump is the commander in chief and as far as I know the Pentagon has to follow his orders.

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

#330

Post by foltik »

DaedalusII wrote: post #306
foltik wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they should ignore the government which ostensibly represents the people Barely represents the people. Especially not on the issue of domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous killing machines. Or the war in Vietnam.

well yeah but should Smith and Wesson just be like man the US Gov doesnt align with our corporate values so we are just gonna start selling belt fed machine guns to civilians absurd yes but same principle. companies have to be subject to government especially in technologies that enable or manage violence. this is because the role of the government is to collectively manage and allocate violence in the manner the peo…

> companies have to be subject to government especially in technologies that enable or manage violence. this is because the role of the government is to collectively manage and allocate violence in the manner the people desire

I don’t know what you’re describing, but it’s not how the US works.

Companies aren’t extensions of the state; they’re private actors that have to follow the law. If Congress wants something prohibited, it passes a law. Otherwise firms are free to choose who they do business with.

Post reply on HN