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

How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#21

Post by austin-cheney »

paulsutter wrote: post #4

Mythos. It's all about Mythos. Once they realized that DoW had locked themselves out of Mythos because of their beef with Anthropic, Trump invited Anthropic to the White House, and in that meeting they convinced Trump that Mythos is a big deal, and that China is distilling their models. Excited to have a powerful tool, now they are saying it should be used by Government agencies first, and therefore, regulation. Key…

> when defense types hear something is DANGEROUS, they want more of it

I have been doing defense work for almost 30 years and in my experience that is the opposite of true.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#22

Post by throw1234567891 »

skissane wrote: post #14
Quarrelsome wrote: post #6

> Anthropic’s enemies in the Pentagon, who had, months prior, convinced Trump that Anthropic was “woke” and should be banned for government use. That people in government speak like this is utterly absurd. The quote from Donald Trump's follow up tweet on t'social is considerably worse. This was all due to Antropic not wanting to take on a military contract, right? Or is it suggested its more to do with Mythos, but wh…

You have to distinguish between political rhetoric (“woke”) and the substance of the dispute The substance: traditionally, defense contracts don’t have clauses in them limiting what the military can do with the acquired technology. If Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann sell a missile system to the Pentagon, they don’t try to impose contractual limits on who the Pentagon can fire the missiles at. Now, for s…

> Congress could change the law tomorrow, or the government’s lawyers could change their interpretation of it, or an appellate court decision could impose a new understanding of it.

And then it becomes legal. It’s not an empty argument, it simply means “someone higher than you took an initiative”.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#23

Post by busterarm »

pixelready wrote: post #12
paulsutter wrote: post #4

Mythos. It's all about Mythos. Once they realized that DoW had locked themselves out of Mythos because of their beef with Anthropic, Trump invited Anthropic to the White House, and in that meeting they convinced Trump that Mythos is a big deal, and that China is distilling their models. Excited to have a powerful tool, now they are saying it should be used by Government agencies first, and therefore, regulation. Key…

Yeah, it’s the same reason that Alex Karp goes on those unhinged apocalyptic rants about Palantir. It’s not for public consumption, it’s for defense insiders. The old logic prevails: a world destroying system is bound to exist, so WE must control it. Spare no expense.

> The old logic prevails: a world destroying system is bound to exist, so WE must control it. Spare no expense.

Except it is both true AND it works. Keeping your foot down on who can produce weapons-grade fissile materials is working out pretty damn well so far.

And the Russo-Ukranian War is proving any idiot with a few rubles can cobble together incredibly efficient combat drones. We need to be probing the limits of that yesterday.

It can both feel bad and be the right thing to do because the alternatives are worse.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#24

Post by jpadkins »

skissane wrote: post #14
Quarrelsome wrote: post #6

> Anthropic’s enemies in the Pentagon, who had, months prior, convinced Trump that Anthropic was “woke” and should be banned for government use. That people in government speak like this is utterly absurd. The quote from Donald Trump's follow up tweet on t'social is considerably worse. This was all due to Antropic not wanting to take on a military contract, right? Or is it suggested its more to do with Mythos, but wh…

You have to distinguish between political rhetoric (“woke”) and the substance of the dispute The substance: traditionally, defense contracts don’t have clauses in them limiting what the military can do with the acquired technology. If Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann sell a missile system to the Pentagon, they don’t try to impose contractual limits on who the Pentagon can fire the missiles at. Now, for s…

Congress passing a changed law, and it holding up in court is how it's supposed to work. The people's reps (specifics interpreted by the courts) should be the ones that set the standard on as a country what type of weapons systems we want to deploy vs. what is immoral. Precedent is nerve agent weapons, landmines, etc.

Honestly, Anthropic's stance feels like an oligarch stance. We have better morals than the American people, we will decide what weapons systems the military will use or not use.

It's perfectly understandable if they don't want to sell weapons to the government. That is a noble thing. But Anthropic wanted that DoW money and wanted to determine what is moral vs. not

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#25

Post by didgetmaster »

guizadillas wrote: post #18

>David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House I was expecting someone to actually crash and burn but OK

The headline didn't say literally. And literally everyone knows that when a person on the web says literally, they literally mean it.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#27

Post by jpadkins »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
skissane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to distinguish between political rhetoric (“woke”) and the substance of the dispute The substance: traditionally, defense contracts don’t have clauses in them limiting what the military can do with the acquired technology. If Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann sell a missile system to the Pentagon, they don’t try to impose contractual limits on who the Pentagon can fire the missiles at. Now, for s…

> Anthropic, who argue AI is a fundamentally different technology They’re arguing it’s a service. I think Aramark could refuse to contract to provide employees to the U.S. military for a campaign on Chicago.

legally and in practice, they cannot. Even considering the 4th amendment, in a time of war the military can commandeer a service as long as they are compensated.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#28

Post by SwellJoe »

Media always covers this administration as though it is normal, and making decisions based on rational policy analysis. Which never makes any sense, because that's not how this White House makes decisions.

Trump wants more bribes, and the AI industry has all the money right now. So, he reckons he's owed a cut. The thing about a gangster with a protection racket is they're never going to stop. You pay them once, that just proves to them that you'll pay. All the tech titans lined up to kiss the ring, and now they're Trump's bitch forever.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#29

Post by jpadkins »

bigyabai wrote: post #16
skissane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to distinguish between political rhetoric (“woke”) and the substance of the dispute The substance: traditionally, defense contracts don’t have clauses in them limiting what the military can do with the acquired technology. If Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann sell a missile system to the Pentagon, they don’t try to impose contractual limits on who the Pentagon can fire the missiles at. Now, for s…

> rather than some immediate plan to do things the contract prohibits. It's not like any legally questionable kidnappings or bombing campaigns were being planned at the time, right?

do you really think the bombings and kidnappings are new as of 2024? You think what we have been doing in the middle east and Guantanamo bay since 2001 are moral?
Post reply on HN