We Will Not Be Divided • Hacker News Board

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#221

Post by PostOnce » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

zugi wrote: post #109

PostOnce wrote: post #19

My take is that none of the AI companies really care (companies can't care), they just realize that if they go down that road, public opinion will be so vehemently against AI in all forms that it will be regulated out of viability by the electorate. Also, if AI exists, AI will be used for war. The AI company employees are kidding themselves if they think otherwise, and yet they are still building it (as opposed to re…

Anthropic does not object to its use for war. In fact Anthropic explicitly allows its semi-autonomous use in war, e.g. for identifying targets. They just won't permit its use for full autonomous war, yet, because they don't believe it's safe enough.

Since when has war been waged according to the whim of a corporation?

The tools will be used however the government wants them to be used. The government makes the laws and wages the wars, and the corporation will follow the law whether it wants to or not.

So either you are willing to work on a tool that is not under your control, or you are not.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#222

Post by myko » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

dfp33 wrote: post #209

david_shaw wrote: post #195

I'd prefer to see board (or executive) level signatories over lay employees -- the people who can enforce enterprise policy rather than just voice their opinions -- but this is encouraging to see nonetheless. I can't help but notice that Grok/X is not part of this initiative, though. I realize that frontier models are really coming from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, but it feels like someone is going to give in to t…

Is it really incredible? Only if you're naive. I guess most here are. Governments are paranoid, particularly about losing control and influence over its subjects. This is expected behaviour.

This is a very different vibe in the US than it has been in living memory.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#223

Post by mythz » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

These 2 Exceptions shouldn't have to be disputed.

At this point I'd go far to say I wouldn't trust any company with my AI history that caves to DoD demands for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons.

Your AI will know more about you than any other company, not going to be trusting that to anyone who trades ethics for profits.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#224

Post by snickerbockers » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

>We are the employees of Google and OpenAI, two of the top AI companies in the world.

Does this mean you dipshits are going to stop your own domestic surveillance programs? You sold your souls to the devil decades ago, don't pretend like you have principles now.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#225

Post by tshaddox » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #199

inkysigma wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger insanity here is the labeling of a supply chain risk. It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. It's another when it actively attempts to isolate Anthropic for political reasons.

> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. This is literally the mechanism by which the DoD does what you're suggesting. Generally speaking, the DoD has to do procurement via competitive bidding. They can't just arbitrarily exclude vendors from a bid, and playing a game of "mother may I use Anthropic?" for every potential govern…

That doesn’t sound right. Surely there’s a big difference between Anthropic selling the government direct access to its models, and an unrelated contractor that sells pencils to the government and happens to use Anthropic’s services to help write the code for their website.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#226

Post by hax0ron3 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

dakolli wrote: post #145

gslepak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares whether the "company" survives? I've seen this movie. A few of them in fact. We're on the chopping block here, lol.

Yeah, I find it funny how we're now defending these AI companies, when they're clearly still an enemy of the working class. They've made it incredibly clear their plans are to disenfranchise labor, and welcome in a world of God knows what with their technologies. Like they're making a stand on mass surveillance, this seems a bit like a red herring, cool they stop using their tools for war fighting, but continue to at…

If the AI companies and the current administration are both enemies of the working class - I am not necessarily saying that they are, but for the sake of argument let's say that they are - then it probably makes strategic sense for the working class to encourage them to fight each other while supporting the side that is less dangerous. Which side is less dangerous to the working class, I do not know. My point is that there's not necessarily any strategic contradiction between defending the AI companies and supporting the working class.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#227

Post by AlexCoventry » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:44 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #188

galleywest200 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government declaring a domestic company as a supply chain threat is a tad more than “refusing to do business” don’t you think?

[flagged]

That is misinformation. It would be essentially a death sentence for a company like Anthropic, which is targeting enterprise business development. No one who wants to work with the US government would be able to have Claude on their critical path.

> (b) Prohibition. (1) Unless an applicable waiver has been issued by the issuing official, Contractors shall not provide or use as part of the performance of the contract any covered article, or any products or services produced or provided by a source, if the covered article or the source is prohibited by an applicable FASCSA orders as follows:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.204-30

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#228

Post by ef2efe » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:45 AM UTC

inkysigma wrote: post #181

timr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to t…

I think the bigger insanity here is the labeling of a supply chain risk. It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. It's another when it actively attempts to isolate Anthropic for political reasons.

Its a government department signalling who's boss.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#229

Post by ArchieScrivener » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:46 AM UTC

The USA showed itself to be a Command Economy that uses 'private enterprise' as a fascade of legitimacy during Covid. Without government spending, employment, and contracts, the USA would be net negative growth.

Now the DoD, who are by far the largest budgetary expense for the tax payer, wants us to believe they don't have a better Ai than current industry? That is a double sword admission; either they are exposing themselves again as economic decision makers, or admitting they spend money on routine BS with zero frontier war fighting capabilities.

Either way, it is beyond time to reform the Military and remove the majority of its leadership as incompetent stewards and strategists. That doesn't even include the massive security vulnerabilities in our supply chains given military needs in various countries. (Taiwan and Thailand)

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#230

Post by hax0ron3 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 2:46 AM UTC

infamouscow wrote: post #23

[flagged]

>The executive branch can categorize AI technology as equivalent to nuclear weapons technology.

Theoretically, but this would run the risk of collapsing the US tech sector, which at this point is a significant part of the strength of the US economy, and thus making it likely that the Republicans will lose power in the next elections.