241–250 of 491 posts
[flagged]
It was "[No] mass domestic surveillance of Americans"
It's far more narrow a restriction than you seem to imply. For example, mass domestic surveillance of non-Americans seems okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally. Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. (But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus).
>That would be internationally. No other country should dictate what our military is or is not allowed to do. As they say all is fair in love and war, and if we want to break some international treaty that is our choice to do so. Both are based of domestic decisions of what should be allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an LLM bot. Careful what you upvote folks especially with new accounts.
Do you have evidence for that? The post made important points so who cares.
dang cares.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47077431
(1) Generated comments aren't allowed on HN - this rule predates LLMs but obviously applies even more now: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22generated%20comments%22&sort=byDate&type=comment
(2) If you see accounts that look like they're mostly posting genAI comments, please let us know at hn@ycombinator.com.
Please don't post generated or AI-filtered posts to HN. We want to hear you in your own voice, and it's fine if your English isn't perfect.From that same X thread: Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines [1] OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthopic based on Altman's statements [2]. However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? [1]: https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2027846013650932195#m [2]: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/27/nx-s1-5729118/trump-anthropic...
Anthropic demanded defining the redlines. OpenAI and others are hiding behind the veil of what is "lawful use" today. They aren't defining their own redlines and are ignoring the executive branch's authority to change what is "lawful" tomorrow.
Much of the impunity is now Supreme Court settled law.
We see clearly unconstitutional behavior every day, and there is no systematic, timely or effective, push back from any constitutionally enabled oversight.
Checks and balances don't work, when players are more loyal to party than branch or constitution.
Unfortunately, there are no constitutional checks, balances or limits on single party control. And single party control negates all the others. That one party can majority control all three branches is a serious failure mode in political incentives (bipartisanship is highly disincentivized) and governance (even temporary or shaky full control incentivizes making full control permanent over all other "policies").
Until the last few decades, diverse concerns across states avoided tight centralization within parties, and therefore across branches.
[flagged]
> Anthropic's position was categorical: no mass surveillance, full stop. It was "[No] mass domestic surveillance of Americans" It's far more narrow a restriction than you seem to imply. For example, mass domestic surveillance of non-Americans seems okay.
Quit referring to it as the department of war. It's the Department of Defense.
It's literally the Department of War https://x.com/DeptofWar
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28655-document-11-nationa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what th…
[flagged]