Our Agreement with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#141

Post by Imustaskforhelp » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:33 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #101

I don't think Anthropic is a saint that will never do anything unethical. I don't think ChatGPT is any better or worse. But I do think my cancelling ChatGPT so I can try Claude, at this time, sends the message I want to send, which is why I did it.

> I don't think Anthropic is a saint that will never do anything unethical. I don't think ChatGPT is any better or worse.

I sort of agree and think that over a long horizon, Open weights models are going to be the best / are the best

I do think only a fraction of companies might do what Anthropic did here. There must have been quite a significant pressure on them to fold but they didn't. So to me, I'd rather try to do atleast something to show companies that people do care about such things and its best if we have at the very least some unconditional morals which are not for sale no matter the price.

I think that we can still have disagreements with Anthropic on matters and I certainly still have some disagreements about their thoughts on Open Models for example but in all regards I would trust them as more trustworthy than OpenAI imho.

That being said, I do think that its worth telling that given that I don't have good GPU, I am gonna stop using Chatgpt as well and will use either Claude/(Kimi?) as well like many people are doing too. I do think that it might be the path going forward.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#142

Post by xvector » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:35 PM UTC

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…

You are exactly correct and this is what Dario has been speaking up about.

He calls this exact scenario out in last night's interview: https://youtu.be/MPTNHrq_4LU

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#143

Post by _alternator_ » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:36 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

The language allows for the DoD to use the model for anything that they deem legal. Read it carefully.

It begins “The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes…” and at no point does it limit that. Rather, it describes what the DOW considers lawful today, and allows them to change the regulations.

As Dario said, it’s weasel legal language, and this administration is the master of taking liberties with legalese, like killing civilians on boats, sending troops to cities, seizing state ballots, deporting immigrants for speech, etc etc etc.

Sam Altman is either a fool, or he thinks the rest of us are.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#144

Post by xvector » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:38 PM UTC

gentleman11 wrote: post #132

randlet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only power you have is to quit. This is an incredible power when exercised en-masse.

--and then, all the decent people no longer work there, and it's like certain other careers populated entirely with psychopaths

Psychopaths tend to be dumb (but not always), and the smartest researchers that actually care about getting humanity to AGI tend to be safety conscious.

This has been a huge talent advertisement for Anthropic. Their recruiting just got easier for the next 6 months.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#145

Post by pamcake » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:39 PM UTC

eoskx wrote: post #102

coffeefirst wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, one of those contracts says you may not build the Terminator. The other says you may build the Terminator if the DOD lawyers say it’s okay. This is a major distinction.

100% this - totally stealing this analogy.

It's not an analogy but an example.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#146

Post by xvector » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:40 PM UTC

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #61

cebert wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money always wins

The comment below mine is flagged but it shouldn't be. I believe Annie Altman.

I used to write off Annie's statements as mad raving, but the more I see how Sam acts the more I'm starting to think she might be telling the truth after all.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#147

Post by storus » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:42 PM UTC

burnJS wrote: post #92

As a stealth ceo of a profitable SaaS. This is a nice reminder for my company to wind down its relationship with OpenAI. I have no doubt Anthropic will eventually become evil but at least they have a backbone today. Goodbye Sam. Edit: Also, referring to the DOD as the Department of War is cringe.

Local inference might a better bet for you.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#148

Post by pamcake » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:46 PM UTC

saghm wrote: post #94

piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

> 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. What if Anthropic's morals are "we won't sell someone a product for something that it's not realistically capable of doing with a high degree of success? The government can't do what something if it's literally impossible (e.g. "safe" backdoors in encryptio…

Isn't it more accurate here to consider OpenAI and Anthropic as service providers rather than a manufacturer of product?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#149

Post by convolvatron » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:46 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #133

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…

>Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? >How on earth did it come to something where the framing is that anyone is "imposing" anything on another simply by not providing services or a product that fits somebody else's need? The department of defense in particular has a law on the books allowing them to force a company to sell them something. They generally a…

buts it not a national emergency. its not a time of war. and there is a different between demanding to be customer, and demanding that you change your products because they would like them to be a different way. that is actual conscription.

for many decades, the DoD has used a carrot to get what they want. this is a stick.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#150

Post by pamcake » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:50 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #76

tensor wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still not consistent. OpenAI made a statement that simply isn't true. They agree to all lawful use, INCLUDING using it to deploy weapons as long as it's legal. It happens to not be legal at the moment, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed and authorized.

That's a fair point, and I'm not so much defending sama's statements after the fact but rather trying to rationalize the OpenAI position.

OpenAI and sama are literally sauing they are fine with facilitating (and even performing) any scale of killing and surveillance as long as they're not held accountable.