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

Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#111

Post by cpncrunch »

PearlRiver wrote: post #108
perfmode wrote: post #23

> But Anthropic has concerns over two issues that it isn’t willing to drop, the source said: AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens. Not a good look for the Pentagon.

A couple of years ago the Netherlands accidentally bombed an Iraqi village off the map after getting some questionable intel from the US. Not a single American ever gave a shit but it was a little bit of a scandal for the Dutch government- which was quickly fixed in the typical Dutch way of transferring some money to the victims. I just don't see how AI dropping the bombs is going to make anything worse.

> I just don't see how AI dropping the bombs is going to make anything worse

A lot more bombs, and claims of the targets being based on intelligence. Essentially what seems to have resulted in the destruction of Gaza.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#112

Post by mullingitover »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #81
perfmode wrote: post #23

> But Anthropic has concerns over two issues that it isn’t willing to drop, the source said: AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens. Not a good look for the Pentagon.

> Not a good look for the Pentagon. It's now the Department of War and war isn't known for its concern about looking good. We all know how this will end, they know it too - both sides - ergo, it's a clear case of blame washing - Anthropic will do everything they're told but will keep a smiley face and the image of a "fighter for the people". DOW will absorb the blame like a sponge and will ask for more, not necessari…

> It's now the Department of War

(By the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, it is the Department of Defense, and nothing short of an act of congress changes that. The executive order secondarily naming it the department of war has as much legal weight as my personal order naming it the Department of Brainrot or Whatever.)

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#113

Post by mullingitover »

paganel wrote: post #76
mullingitover wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pre-2022 Russia was seen and how pre-Trump-second-term US used to be seen until not that long ago, i.e. both governments were believed to be run by big business Who on earth believed that Russia was anything but a de facto dictatorship for roughly the past two decades? Putin murdering with impunity has been a running gag since 2003[1]. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/putin-critics-dead-full-list-navaln...

> Who on earth believed that Russia was anything but a de facto dictatorship for roughly the past two decades? There were lots of people in the Western media who genuinely believed that Putin would be toppled by Russian oligarchs just after the war in Ukraine got more intense in February 2022, on account of "this war is bad for the business of Russian oligarchs, hence they'll get rid of Putin". From the horse's mouth…

I think this was more wishcasting than realistic analysis of what Putin would do and how much leverage his pawns had against him.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#114

Post by paganel »

mullingitover wrote: post #113
paganel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who on earth believed that Russia was anything but a de facto dictatorship for roughly the past two decades? There were lots of people in the Western media who genuinely believed that Putin would be toppled by Russian oligarchs just after the war in Ukraine got more intense in February 2022, on account of "this war is bad for the business of Russian oligarchs, hence they'll get rid of Putin". From the horse's mouth…

I think this was more wishcasting than realistic analysis of what Putin would do and how much leverage his pawns had against him.

It might well have been, but the fact that the West first sanctioned the Russian oligarchs (even before 2022) showed that they really did believe in that wishcasting, i.e. they really did believe that the oligarchs will react “economically rational” and do something about Putin so the sanctions would go away.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#115

Post by Kim_Bruning »

m_ke wrote: post #8

If OpenAI employees have an inch of spine left, they better demand Sama to take the same stance on this as Dario. No mass surveillance and no autonomous weapons.

Many of the OpenAI employees with an inch of spine already left - guess who founded Anthropic?

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#116

Post by kelipso »

mullingitover wrote: post #112
bigbadfeline wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a good look for the Pentagon. It's now the Department of War and war isn't known for its concern about looking good. We all know how this will end, they know it too - both sides - ergo, it's a clear case of blame washing - Anthropic will do everything they're told but will keep a smiley face and the image of a "fighter for the people". DOW will absorb the blame like a sponge and will ask for more, not necessari…

> It's now the Department of War (By the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, it is the Department of Defense, and nothing short of an act of congress changes that. The executive order secondarily naming it the department of war has as much legal weight as my personal order naming it the Department of Brainrot or Whatever.)

This reminds me of that scene where Ned Stark goes and shows a legal document to Cersei and she tears up the piece of paper. It’s DoW because all the official documents, websites, buildings, communications, whatever say it’s DoW, everyone in the chain calls it DoW, etc. Some piece of paper from 1949 doesn’t change that.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#117

Post by penguin_booze »

JohnMakin wrote: post #6

Interesting that Amodei is the only major tech executive I can think of at the moment with a spine or any semblance of a moral compass. OpenAI/Google et al. will gleefully comply with any such requests, no matter how dangerous or unethical. The "problem" that the US govt faces here is that they are kind of tacitly admitting Claude has the most powerful models right now, otherwise they would just cancel all contracts…

"tech executive", "spine", "moral compass" -- it's illegal to these words together in the same sentence... except for this one.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#118

Post by fernandopj »

kelipso wrote: post #116
mullingitover wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's now the Department of War (By the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, it is the Department of Defense, and nothing short of an act of congress changes that. The executive order secondarily naming it the department of war has as much legal weight as my personal order naming it the Department of Brainrot or Whatever.)

This reminds me of that scene where Ned Stark goes and shows a legal document to Cersei and she tears up the piece of paper. It’s DoW because all the official documents, websites, buildings, communications, whatever say it’s DoW, everyone in the chain calls it DoW, etc. Some piece of paper from 1949 doesn’t change that.

Exactly. POSIWID, the "purpose of a system is what it does".

The administration proudly call it that, formal documents call it that, and war they wage. It is a Department of War.

A remarkable exception of non-doublespeak nowadays.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#119

Post by dpedu »

sbarre wrote: post #38
dpedu wrote: post #26

Tangent: is there a future for AI offerings with guardrails? What kind of user wants to pay for a product that occasionally tells you "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"? Why would I pay for a product that doesn't do what I want, despite being capable? I predict that as AI becomes less of a bubble and more of an everyday thing - and thus subject to typical market pressures - offerings with guardrails will st…

Cars have seatbelts and other safety measures. Reasonable countries have gun control laws. The list goes on of things that need to be restricted or legislated to add limits. Is this a serious question?

Seatbelts don't block me from getting to my destination, even if I don't use them.
Post reply on HN