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

241–250 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#241

Post by piker »

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…

No, the usage has to be consistent with all three according to this provision.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#242

Post by rahkiin »

hoistbypetard wrote: post #229
godelski wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The first comma is ambiguous when reading it very precisely without prejudice.

It is a list of 4 items. This should not have been written like this to stand up nicely in courts and gives way to interpretation now.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#243

Post by gwd »

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…

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that it claims is legal.

FTFY. The administration threw a fit and tried to retroactively demote a retired military officer for making a video saying, "Troops, you should disobey unlawful orders". Over 4000 times has been told, "No, that's not what the law regarding detaining undocumented aliens means", and continues doing it. Their first response to the Supreme Court saying, "the President can't impose tarriffs" was "The Hell I can't!".

It's 100% clear that Trump thinks "what the law allows" and "what I want to do" are the same thing.

Rule of law requires that the majority of people in the system are committed to the rule of law, and refuse to go along with violations of it. Anthropic is being a good citizen here; OpenAI is not.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#245

Post by ekidd »

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.

Nope, the War Powers Resolution gives the president broad authority to respond to an active attack on the United States (which makes sense). But it does not allow the President to unilaterally start an aggressive war against some random country without Congressional approval.

Not that we live in country where laws or the Constitution matter much right now. It's theoretically possible that some people might someday be prosecuted for breaking laws or violating people's Constitutional rights. But even there, I world expect that many of the law breakers will simply be pardoned.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#246

Post by 5o1ecist »

Darvon wrote: post #217
eduction wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

Use its real name, the one orange shitler renamed it to: the department of war. Why the fuck does the department of war get to dictate anything to a private organization? Why does the constitution say that you have to let the government murder schoolgirls with your tools?

[flagged]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#247

Post by code_duck »

Darvon wrote: post #217
eduction wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

Use its real name, the one orange shitler renamed it to: the department of war. Why the fuck does the department of war get to dictate anything to a private organization? Why does the constitution say that you have to let the government murder schoolgirls with your tools?

He doesn’t actually have the authority to rename the department. That would be up to Congress.
Post reply on HN