OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
151–160 of 702 posts
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#152Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#153Anthropic probably made the mistake of questioning the Military's activities related to Claude after the Venezuela mission and wanted reassurance that the model wouldn't be used for the redlines, and the military didn't like this and told them we aren't using your models unless you agree to not question us and then the back and forth started.
In the end, we will probably have both OpenAI and Anthropic providing AI to the military and that's a good thing. I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#154But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this?
For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provider?
Other folks have claimed that Anthropic planned to burn the contentious redlines into Claude's constitution.
Update: I have cancelled my subscriptions until OpenAI clarifies the situation. From an alignment perspective Anthropic's stand seems like the correct long-term approach. And at least some AI researchers appear to agree.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#155Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#156Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#157I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
> Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. But they did. "Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agre…
And they are crossing the picket line, which honestly I was sure they would do, though I did expect it to take a bit longer.
This is too transparent even for sama.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#158It’s amazing how quickly the players keep shifting here. Yesterday and the day before sentiment seemed to be focused on “Anthropic selling out”, then that shifted to “Anthropic holds true to its principles in a David vs Goliath” and “the industry will rally around one another for the greater good.” But suddenly we’re seeing a new narrative of “Evil OpenAI swoops in to make a deal with the devil.” Reminds of that week…
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#159Raise your hand if you actually read it or if you read the title and replied? I see a lot of comments that sure seem like they didn’t read it. > Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our…
DoW: WOKE Antropic tried to impose their 'values' on us? Friendship ended!! National security risk!
OpenAI: We just signed a deal that's strong on values, the exact same ones as Anthropic, no way we would mislead anyone about this
You: Seems legit
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know who isn't a dummy? Sam. The crucial part of that statement is that the DoD will use OpenAI systems "lawfully and responsibly," which I don't doubt is written somewhere in their contract. However, those terms are so open-ended that it's impossible for OpenAI to enforce. Sam could have clarified in his tweet that they explicitly prohibited the use of their technology for mass surveillance and autonomous kil…
I guess I’m hanging on what > reflects them in law Means exactly. What law and what does it say? I’m also sure he quietly bent the knee, but I want to know what “law and policy” it’s being reflected in to know.