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

251–260 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#251

Post by conartist6 »

5o1ecist wrote: post #246
Darvon wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Sure sounds like congress renamed it. Those damn masses, exercising democratic power.

Trump will put a stop to that!

Loyalty to the constitution third, loyalty to the party second, loyalty to the president first. That's the order of things in a fascist society and Trump has made very exceptionally clear that he thinks that should be the way of it in the US...

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#252

Post by devinus »

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”?

A corporation, according to US law, is considered a "person" and afforded many of the same rights as an individual citizen (https://www.fincen.gov/who-united-states-person).

Even outside of the US, a corporation is widely considered to be a company of people with their own agency and rights.

A person or group of people should be able to set their own boundaries without being subjected to immoral and unjust retaliation, i.e. corporate murder (https://x.com/i/status/2027515599358730315).

Also, ask any frontier model what Pete Hegseth thinks about democracy.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#254

Post by retsibsi »

rahkiin wrote: post #242
hoistbypetard wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(I'm not a lawyer, but) I don't see the ambiguity. It's a normal grammatical sentence if parsed this way:

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.

Whereas if I try to parse it as a list of 4 items, it's not grammatical:

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.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#255

Post by carefulfungi »

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…

Surely this is the main issue - Doge and others have assembled massive databases of information about all Americans from across the government and now they want to use AI to start making lists.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#256

Post by harimau777 »

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”?

Part of the problem is that due to a combination of the electoral college, gerrymandering, voter supression, propaganda, and Citizens United; America's government is not meaningfully democratic.

Even setting that aside, I don't think that people are saying that they want corporations to make the rules. Rather, what I think they are saying is that they don't want AI to be used for mass surveilance or autonomous weapons and cutting the DoD off at the corporate level is one way to accomplish that.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#258

Post by Nevermark »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #200
Nevermark wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll even say this, the US military itself is on the hook if they stand by and let this happen. That would most definitely not be the Constitutional recourse. Or a sensible approach. If that happens, the Constitution is past tense. Congress and the Supreme Court are the recourse. If they don't hold up the Constitution then violence or even a non-violent military coup, however well intended, are not going to put the…

They swore an oath to defend the constitution of the US against enemies both foreign and domestic. It is entirely lawful for them to fulfill that duty. If the commander in cheif and the civilian administration are clearly and unquestionably violating the constitution, they are no longer legitimate. If they are acting to harm the american people, acting as agents of a foreign enemy or as a domestic enemy to harm the a…

I think we see things the same way.

I am not saying the military shouldn’t ever enact a coup for the good of the people.

But it would be to defend the people, and some hope of reinstating the constitution, by unconstitutional means.

Dark times.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#259

Post by sndididiekdks »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #160

Any OAI employee with >$2M NW that chooses to stick around is simply devoid of a moral compass. No different than working for xAI or Palantir now. I get you have tens of millions vesting. Hope you find it within you to be a good person instead of just a successful one.

seethe harder Ill cry into my money

ethically btw

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#260

Post by e12e »

Interestingly enough, even ChatGPT has this to say about how the Trump administration might side-step the language about fully autonomous weapons:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69a439b3-dfe4-800d-926e-39db221fba...

AI;DR

> So in summary: a future administration could attempt to sidestep those guardrails by altering the underlying legal/policy framework they’re tied to, redefining oversight requirements, or asserting emergency powers — effectively opening a path for more autonomous weapon deployments without facially violating the letter of the current contract text.

Post reply on HN