Live data from Hacker News

Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

techcrunch.com

211–220 of 461 posts

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a $200M contract. That’s not nothing but it’s definitely not such a huge sum for these companies at their scale when they’re spending billions on infrastructure. I’m sure anthropic has signed up more revenue this week in response to this debacle to cover it. Where they’re actually screwed is if the gov follows through and declare anthropic a supply chain risk.

It's not "just" a $200m contract, it's the start of a lucrative relationship 1. Stargate seemed to require a dedicated press conference by the President to achieve funding targets. Why risk that level of politicization if it didn't? 2. Greg Brockman donated $25mil to Trump MAGA Super PAC last year. Why risk so much political backlash for a low leverage return of $200m on $25m spent? 3. During WW2, military spend shot…

First, I have to say I loved your thoughtful & detailed comment. You have clearly considered this from the financial side; let me add some color from the perspective of someone working with frontier researchers.

> As the "alignment" folks on the AI industry are likely to learn

I will push back here. Dario & co are not starry-eyed naive idealists as implied. This is a calculated decision to maximize their goal (safe AGI/ASI.)

You have the right philosophy on the balance sheet side of things, but what you're missing is that researchers are more valuable than any military spend or any datacenter.

It does not matter how many hundreds of billions you have - if the 500-1000 top researchers don't want to work for you, you're fucked; and if they do, you will win because these are the people that come up with the step-change improvements in capability.

There is no substitute for sheer IQ:

- You can't buy it (god knows Zuck has tried, and failed to earn their respect).

- You can't build it (yet.)

- And collaboration amongst less intelligent people does not reliably achieve the requisite "Eureka" realizations.

Had Anthropic gone forth with the DoD contract, they would have lost this top crowd, crippling the firm. On the other hand, by rejecting the contract, Anthropic's recruiting just got much easier (and OAI's much harder).

Generally, the defense crowd have a somewhat inflated sense of self worth. Yes, there's a lot of money, but very few highly intelligent people want to work for them. (Almost no top talent wants to work for Palantir, despite the pay.) So, naturally:

- If OpenAI becomes a glorified military contractor, they will bleed talent.

- Top talent's low trust in the government means Manhattan Project-style collaborations are dead in the water.

As such, AGI will likely emerge from a private enterprise effort that is not heavily militarized.

Finally, the Anthropic restrictions will last, what, 2.5 more years? They are being locked out of a narrow subset of usecases (DoD contract work only - vendors can still use it for all other work - Hegseth's reading of SCR is incorrect) and have farmed massive reputation gains for both top talent and the next administration.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The OpenAI grift is to make itself too big to fail. They are playing a game of chicken ahead of the election circus. Trump must keep the market alive until November. Nvidia, Micron, Oracle, Microsoft are cooked when and if they pop.

Is there a term for such a recurring cycle in which speculative bubbles form, institutions and governments collaborate/collude to sustain them, and when the system finally reaches a breaking point the bubble collapses... leaving the public to absorb the losses while those responsible largely walk away with their pay and bonuses intact?

Usually just "bubble", since it's so common.

This one is unusual in that the government started bailing out the AI companies last year. Usually, it waits until the bubble pops, and then starts the bail outs.

That's standard operating procedure for Trump though.

He did the same thing in 2016-19 with the zero interest rate policy + tax cuts even though the economy was strong. Any macroeconomics book (or NPR station during those years) will tell you that doing that creates short-term economic growth, but sets the next administration up for [hyper-]inflation.

Of course, that happened, and those same books go on to say "and, usually, because inflation takes a bit to kick in, the next president will be blamed. This is why we have an independent Fed".

So, this time around, he's trying to pull the same crap by dismantling the Fed, and, until then, lean hard into deficit spending to keep unemployment low. Last year, money went to data centers, and domestic paramilitary actions and prison build-outs. This year, we have those things and a new pointless forever war.

However, it's not working the same way as it did last time. He's done so much other collateral damage that we're in a "boomcession" where the economic indicators become untethered from reality. So, they show growth, but people's quality of life, spending power, job security, and so on all decrease.

For example, a piece of the GDP is "how much does your bank screw you per year on your checking account?". This is treated like discretionary spending, and it's gone up from a few hundred a year to over $2000 in 2025. That increase counts as economic growth, instead of institutionalized theft.

Medical spending increases drove all the US's GDP growth last quarter. The quarter before that, it was spending on AI datacenters that's backed by junk loans and federal dollars.

Anyway, I don't have an answer for your question better than "bubble", but the current economic cycle is not what you described. It is a "boomcession". As far as I can tell, it's a new class of economic disaster, at least in the US.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any company is free to choose its business partners and set terms to them. "Don't like our terms, don't partner with us" If government can force any private company to work specially for government then US is no better than PRC

You might want to read about the War Production Board during World War II. Established by a presidential executive order no less.

Wasn't that for defense during an actual war started by another country?

Legit war time measures can be a thing (that's why it's fucked if president can just start a war and then use that as excuse for any war time measures they like)

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#215

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…

I'd have money on OpenAI hiding behind the "all lawful use" phrasing to claim high levels of protection. He also claimed that they would build rules into the model the DoD would use, preventing misuse. Aka he claims OpenAI will quickly solve alignment and build it right in...I wouldn't hold my breath.

OpenAI: Is that... legal?

DoD: I will make it legal.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#216

Dario's full memo - https://pasteboard.co/4Qlmsorrytlk.jpg

Wow. Surprising to see open hostilities between the leaders of the big ai labs. The differences appear to not just be competitive but also ideological.

Edit: Also openly calling OpenAI employees "gullible" and "twitter morons" seems sub-optimal if you like that talent to work for you at some point.

Example - https://x.com/tszzl/status/2029334980481212820

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#217
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If I start a small business that sells Apples and the US government comes to me and says "we want to buy your apples and fire them at high speed to" these are now your words "kill adversaries through any means necessary." If I say, no, then am I stopping the military? I feel like it is reasonable that I can say "no, I don't want to sell you my apples." I cannot for the life of me figure out why that means I am stoppi…

In the context of the larger discussion, if you already sold apples to the military, you cannot go to them and say you don't like how they're using the apples you sold them.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#218
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There's a reason it's unpopular. If your company makes an herbicide that happens to be very good at killing off anyone who drinks it at a high concentration in their water supply, you're saying that there should be no way for your company to resist being used for mass murder (including unavoidable collateral damage)? Also, the core mission of the military is not "killing its adversaries through any means necessary".…

>> Unpopular opinion around here, but no company should have the ability to stop the military from its core mission: killing its adevarsaries through any means necessary.

> The actual military is not evil. Your conception of it is.

You're right, but there's a a real question here: should a company have the ability to control or veto the decisions of the democratically-elected government?

To give different hypothetical example: should Microsoft be allowed to put terms in its Windows contracts with the government, stipulating that Windows cannot be used to create or enforce certain tax policy or regulations that Microsoft disagrees with? Windows is all over, and I'm sure pretty much every government process touches Windows at some point, so such a term would have a lot of power.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#219

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…

For consumer ChatGPT accounts, go to their privacy portal [1] and, first, delete your GPTs, and then, second, delete your account. [1] https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control

How do I cancel my subscription to the DoW?

The bigger picture is that the DoW got what it wanted and it got it by threatening one company while the other did its bidding.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#220

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…

Greg Brockman donated 25 million dollars, and DoW gives OpenAI 200 million dollar contract.

Just good 'ol fashion grifting mixed with a bit of government corruption.

This country has been boiling the frog of graft, grifting, and corruption too long.

Post reply on HN