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

151–160 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#151

Post by _alternator_ »

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…

This is exactly what it says: the only restrictions are the restrictions that are already in law. This seems like the weasel language Dario was talking about.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#153

Post by kivle »

avaer wrote: post #108
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 word "legal" is doing all of the heavy lifting. Considering the countless adjudicated illegal things that the government is doing publicly. What happens behind classified closed doors? I guess you can consider it a moral stance that if the government constantly does illegal things you wouldn't trust them to follow the law. I know that's not what Anthropic said but that's the gist I'm getting.

Does legal include international law, which the US has broken numerous times the last two days?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#154

Post by kivle »

_alternator_ wrote: post #151
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…

This is exactly what it says: the only restrictions are the restrictions that are already in law. This seems like the weasel language Dario was talking about.

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#155

Post by LoganDark »

pamcake wrote: post #148
saghm wrote: post #94

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. 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?

The service they provide is on-premises deployment, I guess. But what they are deploying is a product.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#156

Post by randlet »

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

Wouldn't staying feel like implicitly condoning the actions of the "psychopaths"?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#157

Post by tombert »

Trasmatta wrote: post #106
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.

And a nice bonus is that Claude is way better than ChatGPT right now anyway

I just changed last night and honestly I can't tell much of a difference.

I'm not really complaining, it seems fine, but I'm not seeing the "way better" part that people keep saying.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#158

Post by shikon7 »

kivle wrote: post #154
_alternator_ wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what it says: the only restrictions are the restrictions that are already in law. This seems like the weasel language Dario was talking about.

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

No, executive orders can't change law and international law, unless ratified by congress, is not democratically legitimized and applicable law in the US to begin with

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#159

Post by tombert »

dizhn wrote: post #67

Are they not allowed to say department of defence? I know botj names are official now but this is a choice on their own blog.

Department of War actually isn't official as far as I know. Of course you can call it what you want but I believe an official name change actually requires an act of congress.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#160

Post by solenoid0937 »

Any OAI employee with >$2M NW that chooses to stick around is simply devoid of a moral compass. No different than working for xAI or Palantir now.

I get you have tens of millions vesting. Hope you find it within you to be a good person instead of just a successful one.

Post reply on HN