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

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#231

Post by camillomiller »

nubg wrote: post #67
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

I think it's phrased just fine. It's not up to Dario to try to make absolute statements about the future.

And yet he’s quite happy to make just that when it’s meant to drum you up his own product for investors

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#232

Post by probably_wrong »

ricardobeat wrote: post #130
probably_wrong wrote: post #108

I have read the whole thing but I nonetheless want to focus on the second paragraph: > Anthropic has therefore worked proactively to deploy our models to the Department of War This should be a "have you noticed that the caps on our hats have skulls on it?" moment [1]. Even if one argues that the sentence should not be read literally (that is, that it's not literal war we're talking about), the only reason for calling…

What is their other possible move here, considering the government is threatening to destroy their business entirely?

One alternative would be to call the government's bluff: if they truly are as indispensable as they claim then they can leverage that advantage into a deal.

But at a more general level, I'd say that unethical actions do not suddenly become ethical when one's business is at risk. If Anthropic considers that using their technology for X is unethical and then decide that their money and power is worth more than the lives of the foreigners that will be affected by doing X then good for them, but they shouldn't then make a grandstand about how hard they fought to ensure that only foreigners get their necks under the boots.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#233

Post by scottyah »

urikaduri wrote: post #212
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

The Ghandi of the corporate world is yet to be found

Considering he slept naked with his grandniece (he was in his 70s, she was 17), I'd say there are a lot of them in the corporate world. Though probably more in politics.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#234

Post by scottyah »

archagon wrote: post #224
TaupeRanger wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you expect? The military is obviously going to develop the most powerful systems they can. Do you want a tech company to say “the military can never use our stuff for autonomous systems forever, the end”? What if Anthropic ends up developing the safest, most cost effective systems for that purpose?

Yes, I absolutely don’t want tech companies to use the money I pay them to harm people. How is that remotely controversial?

Because it's painfully short-sighted, or maliciously ignorant.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#235

Post by tootie »

helaoban wrote: post #106

All of these problems are downstream of the Congress having thoroughly abdicated its powers to the executive. The military should be reigned in at the legislative level, by constraining what it can and cannot do under law. Popular action is the only way to make that happen. Energy directed anywhere else is a waste. Private corporations should never be allowed to dictate how the military acts. Such a thought would be…

It's also downstream of voters who voted in a president who promised to be dictatorial after failing at an attempted insurrection. We need to deprogram like 70M very confused people.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#236

Post by popalchemist »

muglug wrote: post #183

OpenAI and Google could have decided to make the same principled stand, and the government would have likely capitulated.

They both literally removed morality from their bylaws; that time has passed. They're openly corrupt because it pays to be so.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#237

Post by teyopi »

cthalupa wrote: post #188
statuslover9000 wrote: post #124

The Sinophobic culture at Anthropic is worrying. Say what you will about authoritarianism, but China’s non-imperialist foreign policy means their economy is less reliant on a military-industrial complex. All they have to do is continue to pump out exponentially more solar panels and the petrodollar will fall, possibly taking our reserve currency status with it. The U.S. seems more likely to start a hot war in the nam…

Look. I think the Chinese AI companies are doing a lot of good. I'm glad they exist. I'm glad they're relatively advanced. I don't think the entire nation of China is a bunch of villains. I don't think the US, even before the current era, is a bunch of do-gooders. But China has some of the most imperialist policies in the world. They are just as imperialist as Russia or America. Military contracts are still massive b…

> But China has some of the most imperialist policies in the world.

Citation needed?

US and allies have invaded or intervened in 20+ countries in last 20 years in the name of "western values" where values means $$$$ and hegemony.

Educate me please with a comparison of what China has done to be "some of the most imperialist policies"?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#238

Post by mgraczyk »

qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

Anthropic doesn't forbid DoW from using the models for foreign surveillance. It's not about harming others, it's about doing what is best for humanity in the long run, all things considered. I personally do not believe that foreign surveillance is automatically harmful and I'm fine with our military doing it

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#240

Post by felineflock »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #113
_cenw wrote: post #24

As a "foreign national", what's the deal with making the distinction between domestic mass surveillance and foreign mass surveillance? Are there no democracies aside from the US? Don't we know since Snowden that if the US wants to do domestic surveillance they'll just ask GCHQ to share their "foreign" surveillance capabilities?

I'm glad to see this as the top comment. I was, until recently, a loyal Anthropic customer. No more. Because the way non-Americans are spoken of by a company that serves an international market (and this isn't the first instance): "Mass domestic surveillance. We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass _domestic_ surveillance is incompati…

That reasoning sounds confusing: are you actually in favor of US gov's surveillance on Americans?

If not, then why are you punishing that company for refusing to deal with the US gov?

Or is it just because they worded their opposition in a certain way that you dislike?

Post reply on HN