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

Our Agreement with the Department of War

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#121

Post by crazygringo »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #107
marcellus23 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP's use of the word "impose" didn't seem perjorative to me or suggest that Anthropic is the offender and the government is the victim. I think you're reading a lot into a simple word choice and this response seems way too hostile.

Are you really going to pretend that “impose their morals” is a completely value-neutral statement?

It seems value-neutral to me. It's descriptive. Particularly for anyone who understands that different groups of people will legitimately disagree on many moral questions.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#122

Post by furryrain »

> Fully autonomous weapons. The cloud deployment surface covered in our contract would not permit powering fully autonomous weapons, as this would require edge deployment.

Can anyone explain this constraint?

Why do fully autonomous weapons require edge deployment?

Does "fully autonomous" in this context mean "disconnected from the Internet"?

If so, can a drone with Internet connectivity use OpenAI?

Or maybe it's about on-premise requirements: the military doesn't want to depend on OpenAI's DCs for weaponry, and instead wants OpenAI in their own DCs for that?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#123

Post by nickysielicki »

specialp wrote: post #119
nickysielicki wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying that Anthropic has to shut down. They’re just saying that nobody taking government money can pay Anthropic for their service as a part of that contract. Anthropic still has the right to exist on their own terms, but their business model is based on rapidly-increasing enterprise subscriptions, which included public sector spending. If Anthropic can survive on open source contributors shelling out $200…

Well it depends. Being that the federal government constitutes 20% of the US economy, telling federal agencies you cannot contract with someone because they are adversarial to the USA is indeed pretty severe. When in reality they are not adversarial. We have no choice but to pay taxes and make the federal government 20 percent of our economy. There is no single company or any other entity that is close. And extending…

> When in reality they are not adversarial.

This is obviously subjective, and the only subject that matters in this case is the leadership at the DoD.

> We have no choice but to pay taxes and make the federal government 20 percent of our economy. There is no single company or any other entity that is close. And extending it to everyone who has a government contract probably makes it the majority of the economy.

I, too, hate big government and the all-powerful executive branch. Welcome to my tent. Let’s invent a time machine together so we can elect Ron Paul in 2008 and nip this in the bud.

Until then, this is what we’re stuck with.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#124

Post by rudedogg »

_alternator_ wrote: post #20

The agreement puts no restrictions on the government beyond “all lawful purposes,” which is what Anthropic objected to. > “ The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes… [proceeds to describe current law, with clear openings if the law changes]” Thus, OAI is relying on the Trump administration’s interpretation of current law. Which, I will remind readers, suggests that it is legal to kill civil…

It's not much but I was planning to cancel my Anthropic subscription to try Codex over the weekend, but I'll skip that. I don't want to support a company with someone like this at the top. Massive donations to the administration, sneaky backdoor deals. No thanks, fuck you.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#125

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

marcellus23 wrote: post #53
rendx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? What happened to "We give each other the freedom to hold beliefs and act accordingly unless it does harm"? How on earth did it come to something where the fra…

The GP's use of the word "impose" didn't seem perjorative to me or suggest that Anthropic is the offender and the government is the victim. I think you're reading a lot into a simple word choice and this response seems way too hostile.

A "simple word choice"?? This isn't just about the single word "impose", read the whole post:

> Per DoD Directive 3000.09 (dtd 25 January 2023), any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must undergo rigorous verification, validation, and testing to ensure they perform as intended in realistic environments before deployment. The emphasized language is the delta between what OpenAI agreed and what Anthropic wanted.

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products.

So first off, regarding that first paragraph, didn't any of these idiots watch WarGames, or heck, Terminator? This is not just "oh, why are you quoting Hollywood hyperbole" - a hallmark of today's AI is we can't really control it except for some "pretty please we really really mean it be nice" in the system prompt, and even experts in the field have shown how that can fail miserably: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...

Second, yes, I am relieved Anthropic wanted to "impose" their morals because, if anything, the current administration has been loud and clear that the law basically means whatever they says it does and will absolutely push it to absurd limits, so I now value "legal limits" as absolutely meaningless - what is needed are hard, non-bullshit statements about red lines, and Anthropic stood by the those, and Altman showed what a weasel he is and acceded to their demands.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#127

Post by gentleman11 »

tfehring wrote: post #117

> For intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives requiring a defined foreign intelligence purpose. The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with t…

Open ai, the former non-profit, whose board tried to fire the CEO for being deceptive, which is no longer open at all, isn't exactly about ethics these days.

Even on a personal level: OpenAI has changed it's privacy policy twice to let them gather data on me they weren't before. A lot of steps to disable it each time, tons of dark patterns. And the data checkout just bugs out too, it's a fake feature to hide how much they are using everything you type to them

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#128

Post by kcplate »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #107
marcellus23 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP's use of the word "impose" didn't seem perjorative to me or suggest that Anthropic is the offender and the government is the victim. I think you're reading a lot into a simple word choice and this response seems way too hostile.

Are you really going to pretend that “impose their morals” is a completely value-neutral statement?

What would be the value neutral way to phrase it?
Post reply on HN