Our Agreement with the Department of War

Post by derwiki » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 6:40 AM UTC

davesque wrote: post #194

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…

i.e. Combing through public forums on the internet looking for evidence of thought crime, however, is fair game. The Trump admin will undoubtedly use tools like this to compile a list political enemies or undesirables, which they will then use to harass people or selectively restrict individual rights. They're already doing this and this is just going to make it easier for them.

Post by derwiki » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

michaelteter wrote: post #201

Buttons840 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also good to demonstrate to these companies that we're willing to move. If these companies know their entire userbase will just pack up and move at the first controversy, there wont be any controversies.

Consumer actions are meaningless here. If Altman can become Trump’s new best friend (can’t wait to watch the Altman/Musk drama), there will be so much public money directed toward OpenAI that they can stop wasting their time on the puny people.

Post by derwiki » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 6:46 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #165

1121redblackgo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And behind the quitting decision is very little safety net and usually substantial financial obligations keeping people handcuffed. Something has to give. The power employees had during covid was the way it should be, or something more closely approximating that.

I guarantee you that most OAI employees have well into the multiple millions at this point. There is no "financial safety net" they need to care about. That is just an excuse.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 7:51 AM UTC

eduction wrote: post #214

gentleman11 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open ai, the former non-profit, whose board tried to fire the CEO for being deceptive, which is no longer open at all, isn't exactly about ethics these days. Even on a personal level: OpenAI has changed it's privacy policy twice to let them gather data on me they weren't before. A lot of steps to disable it each time, tons of dark patterns. And the data checkout just bugs out too, it's a fake feature to hide how much…

So why would we want them setting policy for the DoD? Laws are enacted through a fundamentally democratic process defined over hundreds of years. Why wouldn’t that be the way to govern use of tools? Why would we want to trade our constitution for, effectively, “rules Sam Altman came up with”?

Post by piker » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 8:17 AM UTC

_alternator_ wrote: post #143

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…

The language allows for the DoD to use the model for anything that they deem legal. Read it carefully. It begins “The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes…” and at no point does it limit that. Rather, it describes what the DOW considers lawful today, and allows them to change the regulations. As Dario said, it’s weasel legal language, and this administration is the master of taking libertie…