OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#201

Post by OhioMan2943 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 5:59 AM UTC

schoen wrote: post #198

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah some new banner to organise around- the hard part is easily communicating you're an ethical technologist and finding others.

Also, it's probably tricky to find a Schelling point that a broad range of people can agree to. * no military use * no lethal use * no use in support of law enforcement * no use in support of immigration enforcement * no use in mass surveillance * no use in domestic mass surveillance (but mass surveillance of foreigners is OK) * no use in domestic surveillance * no use in surveillance * require independent audits * r…

There is definitely a muddle on so many levels about signaling and agreeing on ethics in technology.

But as innovation slows globally, it is implementation, ethics, and ideology that will once again be the dominant metrics of progress, so there's a new window emerging to push for this social/moral change in technology once again.

So it's still critically important that we actively work towards finding a meaningful, socially contagious differentiator other than "ethical technologist" even if it's difficult- look at what OpenAI gets away with under that flimsy banner.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#202

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:00 AM UTC

arugulum wrote: post #131

Imnimo wrote: post #16

I 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…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#203

Post by a_victorp » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:04 AM UTC

adverbly wrote: post #86

corford wrote: post #43

If you're unhappy with this, an immediate way to signal it is with your wallet. In my case I've just uninstalled chatgpt from my phone, cancelled my subscription and will up my spend with anthropic.

Deleted all chats and deleted my account.

I tried doing that but I'm certain they didn't delete it, because I tried logging in after a week and it worked

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#204

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:04 AM UTC

WD-42 wrote: post #150

arugulum wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm sure it's a matter of interpretation. Anthropic thinks the DoW's demands will lead to mass surveillance and auto-kill bots. The DoW probably disagrees with that interpretation, and all OpenAI needs to do is agree with the DoW. My bet is that what the DoW wants is pretty clearly tied to mass surveillance and kill-bots. Altman is a snake.

Why do you choose to call it the "DoW"? Its official name is the Department of Defense, it was titled that way by Congress and only Congress can change it. What is your motivation in using a term that the current administration has started to use? Do you also use the Gulf of America when referrring to the body of water that defines the southern edge of the USA?

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#205

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:05 AM UTC

foo12bar wrote: post #181

outside1234 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us can act too. Stop using the OpenAI models. Stop using the app. Design in other models no matter what. Screw these guys.

Do you expect that to work?

No, I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#206

Post by lukan » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:08 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #185

layer8 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that. In both cases, the two parties can claim to agree on the principles, but when push comes to shove, who decides on whether the principles are violated differs.

Seems Anthropic did not understand the questions they were asked. From the WaPo: >A defense official said the Pentagon’s technology chief whittled the debate down to a life-and-death nuclear scenario at a meeting last month: If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down? >It’s the kind of situation where technologi…

"It’s the kind of situation where technological might and speed could be critical to detection and counterstrike"

Missile detection and decision to make a (nuclear) counterstrike are 2 different things to me but apparently the department of war wants both, so it seems not "just" about missile detection.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#207

Post by lioeters » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:09 AM UTC

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #127

davidw wrote: post #40

We need some kind of group like "tech people with morals". I'm done with these people and their corruption and garbage.

Yeah some new banner to organise around- the hard part is easily communicating you're an ethical technologist and finding others.

"Starting today I will be asking prominent members of the tech community to sign their name onto this. A code of conduct, authored by me, that pledges them to a universal ethos, which I created, that I call tech ethics or Tethics for short."

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#208

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:11 AM UTC

qwerasdf5 wrote: post #166

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're quoting social media posts from a regime official who says he didn't participate in these negotiations and doesn't work for the relevant department. If his characterization of the agreement is correct, which I will not believe and you should not believe until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text, I suppose this would convince me that Hegseth does not literally plan to build a Terminator for democracy-e…

> which I will not believe and you should not believe It seems like you chose to immediately disbelieve it. > until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text If you've found one of these, let me know. I'm still looking...

I did choose to immediately disbelieve it. If a Trump regime official tells me something, and they could plausibly benefit from lying to me about it, I assume until proven otherwise that they're lying. They've earned this reputation through a large number of consequential and later disproven lies; my apologies to Mr. Lewin if he personally is an honest man, although I might encourage him to think about whether the good he's doing in his role is so important that it outweighs the lies he's providing cover for and the gradual erosion of his integrity.

> If you've found one of these, let me know. I'm still looking...

I do not assume, and I would recommend that you do not assume, that there is such a thing as a text of the contract. It's much easier to lie about contents of documents that don't actually exist yet. Then you can craft the text in response to public feedback, writing it down in early March and telling people that it's totally a copy of what was agreed to on February 27.

As a corollary, you should be skeptical of any purported text that is not widely published soon. If there is indeed such a contract, and it says what Altman claims, he will desperately want to ensure that his employees have read a "leak" of the text by Monday morning.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#209

Post by harmonic18374 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:12 AM UTC

sesqu wrote: post #187

harmonic18374 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prescribe literally zero truth value to what Sam says. He will say whatever he needs to get ahead. It is honestly irritating to me that you and many others here seem to implicitly assume his messages are correlated with truth, doing his social engineering work for him, as if his word should adjust your priors even slightly. I don't necessarily think he's lying, but there's so much obvious incentive for him to lie h…

I'm not sure if I'd go down to zero, but he did get fired from OpenAI for lying.

And fired from YC for lying. And lied to investors about how many Loopt employees he had. And lied about having 100x the actual number of users when he sold it. And lied to employees about the Microsoft deal. And lied to his safety team.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#210

Post by quaunaut » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:14 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #185

layer8 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that. In both cases, the two parties can claim to agree on the principles, but when push comes to shove, who decides on whether the principles are violated differs.

Seems Anthropic did not understand the questions they were asked. From the WaPo: >A defense official said the Pentagon’s technology chief whittled the debate down to a life-and-death nuclear scenario at a meeting last month: If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down? >It’s the kind of situation where technologi…

Are you serious? This is the kind of thing you'd ask a clarifying question on and get information back immediately. Further, the huge overreaction from Hegseth shows this is a fundamental disagreement.