Live data from Hacker News

Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

cnn.com

131–134 of 134 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the two main threats are Defense Production Act and Supply Chain Risk. I'd assume Anthropic would sue if either were invoked. I could imagine Supply Chain Risk being easier to push back on because it's pretty clearly being used punitively rather than because of an actual risk. DPA might be a bit harder to push back on if the banned functionality (i.e. mass surveillance and autonomous weapons) exists in the…

I'm wondering exactly how they expect the DPA to help them with what is essentially a SaaS product. It's still going to refuse to do things it refuses to do.

My thought was that if the refusal to service some requests is implemented as an external guard model The Pentagon could try to require them to drop the guard model. This would be similar to saying "we're asking for a 'product' you already 'manufacture'" in the way the DPA is often understood. But if the refusal is baked into the model itself then that argument is dead. Not saying I agree with this, I think it turns into the same kind of problem we saw with the Apple v. FBI conflict and the All Writs Act, but the government doesn't always act in the most sane ways.

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

#132
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be a win-win. Simply having a seat at the table can be a win.

No, compromising on your core thing that you care about for a "seat at the table" is not how you win. It is how you lose. It is how you lose the game, the metagame, and your soul. All at once.

When you do not have a seat at the table, you are not in the game, and winning a game is an impossibility. As long as you are a player, it is remains an option, if perhaps not win it somehow, but at least drag it to a draw, or change the rules, or make a loss to be survivable.

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

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering exactly how they expect the DPA to help them with what is essentially a SaaS product. It's still going to refuse to do things it refuses to do.

My thought was that if the refusal to service some requests is implemented as an external guard model The Pentagon could try to require them to drop the guard model. This would be similar to saying "we're asking for a 'product' you already 'manufacture'" in the way the DPA is often understood. But if the refusal is baked into the model itself then that argument is dead. Not saying I agree with this, I think it turns…

guidance and alignment are usually handled by RLHF, which actually rewires the weights such that it becomes near-impossible for the model to have certain kinds of 'thoughts'. This is baked in such that it's not something you can just extract or turn off.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hear this view of Altman, but then why does he have no equity in OpenAI? What’s the greedy master plan there?

He might get 5 to 10% in the restructuring that's underway. That would be 25 to 50 billion dollars

I thought that restructuring finished in the fall, and he still didn't get any equity?
Post reply on HN