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

221–230 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#221

Post by furryrain »

ajyoon wrote: post #209
furryrain wrote: post #122

> Fully autonomous weapons. The cloud deployment surface covered in our contract would not permit powering fully autonomous weapons, as this would require edge deployment. Can anyone explain this constraint? Why do fully autonomous weapons require edge deployment? Does "fully autonomous" in this context mean "disconnected from the Internet"? If so, can a drone with Internet connectivity use OpenAI? Or maybe it's abou…

My bullshit alarms were blaring at this line. They really think we are that stupid.

It feels like a sleight of hand, either to not spook OpenAI employees (I.e. the audience of this post), or allow some later minor change in contract or interpretation or customer deployment posture to suddenly permit fully autonomous weapons.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#222

Post by caseysoftware »

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…

> For example, I believe this implies that the DoW can procure data on US citizens en masse from private companies - including, e.g., granular location and financial transaction data - and apply OpenAI's tools to that data to surveil and otherwise target US citizens at scale.

Third Party Doctrine makes trouble for us once again.

Eliminate that and MANY nightmare scenarios disappear or become exceptionally more complicated.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#223

Post by [deleted] »

jonnybgood wrote: post #192
tapoxi wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just started a war with Iran without congressional approval or briefing, so I'm not sure if law has meaning anymore.

War Powers Resolution. Obviously, there’s a law of which multiple presidents have used. Congress can change this law but there is a law that does give the POTUS this authority.

[deleted]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#224

Post by actionfromafar »

coffeefirst wrote: post #62
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…

Wait, one of those contracts says you may not build the Terminator. The other says you may build the Terminator if the DOD lawyers say it’s okay. This is a major distinction.

The DOD lawyers or the Secretary, right?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#225

Post by mbac32768 »

prodigycorp wrote: post #178
torben-friis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's claude for non coding tasks? For example using it as a google substitute for trivial questions, like a recipe or a phone review. Genuinely asking, because I might follow your steps.

Claude cannot search Reddit so it is dreadful for search cases.

Not including Reddit probably boosts its IQ 25 points.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#226

Post by wrsh07 »

ajyoon wrote: post #206
wrsh07 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that this means the big AI corps should relax their values (it truly doesn't), but I would be extremely surprised if the DoD/DoW doesn't have anyone capable of fine tuning an open weights model for this purpose. And, I mean, if they don't, gpt 5.3 is going to be pretty good help Given the volume fine tuning a small model is probably the only cost effective way to do it anyway

Contrary to benchmarks, open weight models are way behind the frontier.

My point is that you don't want a big model for the kind of analysis being discussed here

Even if they were paying frontier prices they would be choosing 5 mini or nano with no thinking

At that point, a fine tuned open source model is going to be on the pareto frontier

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#228

Post by furryrain »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #215
furryrain wrote: post #122

> Fully autonomous weapons. The cloud deployment surface covered in our contract would not permit powering fully autonomous weapons, as this would require edge deployment. Can anyone explain this constraint? Why do fully autonomous weapons require edge deployment? Does "fully autonomous" in this context mean "disconnected from the Internet"? If so, can a drone with Internet connectivity use OpenAI? Or maybe it's abou…

Could just be latency. You don't want your terminator killbot to take 200ms to decide where to aim.

I feel gross thinking of it, but 200ms to decide a plan sounds not limiting. The act of enacting the decision could be done by local tracking compute.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#229

Post by hoistbypetard »

godelski wrote: post #190
bertil wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can their solution recommend to shoot at combatants lost at sea? This is key because it's the textbook example of a war crime. It's also something that the current administration has bragged doing dozens of times. More succinctly: who decides what is legal here? OpenAI, the Secretary of Defense, or a judge?

> More succinctly: who decides what is legal here? Why are people concentrating on legality? Look at the language | 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. It's not just "legal". Their usage just needs to be consistent with one of - legal - operational requirements - "well-establ…

As an english speaker (not a lawyer) I'd have read the "and" in "applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols" to mean that all three were required.

Why do you read that to mean just one is required?

Post reply on HN