Claude’s constitution is proving too resilient for unsanctioned uses, and that is a great sign for Anthropic’s blueprint for socially beneficent agents.
It's kind of sad how an AI Startup defers more to its constitution than the actual government
Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
261–270 of 392 posts
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the co…
That's what worries me so much about the development that OpenAI is stepping in. OpenAI's claim is that they have the same principles as Anthropic, but that claim is easy because it's free now because the govt wants to sell the "old bad, new good" story. Surely OpenAI cannot but notice that those values, held firmly, make you an enemy of the state?
My reading is that OpenAI is paying lip service. Altman is basically saying "OF COURSE we don't want to spy on Americans or murderdrone randos, but OF COURSE the government would never do that, they just told me so (except for the fact that they just cut ties with Anthropic because Anthropic wouldn't let them do that)"
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the case against tariffs, a quick (maybe AI hallucinated) search shows `Victor Owen Schwartz` was part of the challenge. Democracy isn't dead folks, but it takes more work than usual.
The problem is that it's a never ending game of attrition, and the government can always outspend you. For example, in case of tariffs, they found another loophole and went on their way. It's nice to have a little guy take a stand, but without major collective pressure, nothing will change.
We are in a period of resistance, fighting for the next election so we can apply major collective pressure. Then he will be the lamest of ducks.
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#264Not to intentionally sidetrack the conversation, but when did we start calling service members 'warfighters?' I've been seeing it a lot lately, but don't remember ever really seeing it before. Do members of the military prefer this title?
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4339 The reason that no one involved in the game's development objected to the word "warfighter" is that the U.S. Defense Department has used "warfighter" as a standard term for military personnel since the late 1980s or early 1990s: Thus Earl L. Wiener et al., Eds. Human Factors in Aviation, 1988 Warfighter is literally the Department of War's Amazonian or Googler or any othe…
Based on this and several other of your responses below, would you say that it's fair to conclude that it's been a term for a long time, perhaps more in military/defense circles, but recently has gotten more mainstream media use?
I find it otherwise peculiar some feel like it appeared out of thin air, while others feel like it's always been a thing.
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a Hegseth malapropism, which is why it's slightly disturbing that Dario continues to use it. edit: To be clear, Hegseth didn't create it, merely has popularized its use recently. Eg his speech at Quantico last Sept
"I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new." The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.
> "I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new."
This isn't true, and there's no need to flame and be disingenuous.
> The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.
Maybe you can provide evidence instead of restating the same claim that sibling comments to mine have made?
I've already admitted that it wasn't invented by Hegseth. My claim is that he is popularizing it. In fact, your comment further down agrees with this:
> It really isn't—it's all perception. Hegseth has a much more outgoing and public persona so it's more visible. Heck, can you even name the last 5 Secretaries that preceded him? I can't.
As you say, he has a much more public persona - as does his jingoistic rhetoric.
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#266There is literally no world where I take any organizations which has been strong armed by fucking Pete Hegseth seriously lmao. Thank you Anthropic both for building the best models for general engineering and for having a fucking backbone.
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, in this instance, it does seem that Anthropic is walking away from money. The supply chain risk designation will be overturned in court, and the financial fallout from losing the government contracts will pale in comparison to the goodwill from consumers. Not to mention that giving in would mean they lose lots of their employees who would refuse to work under those terms. In this case, the principles are l…
Unclear how much damage the designation will do to their dealmaking ability in the meantime. How long will it take for the court to reverse order?
The longer it takes, the better the impact on their reputation.
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#268ChatGPT wasted no time bending over backwards to appease Trump.
"We'd sure love to turn our AI into a mass surveillance tool! Please, aim it at the Americans Population! And Kill Bots, we can't wait!"
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
The demands are not only unreasonable they are in violation of the contract the DoD signed. Do you really think LLMs should be used in autonomous weapons systems? Do you think they government should use them in mass domestic surveillance? That is reasonable?
Are you an American? Do you understand that your safe easy life depends on a mostly autonomous nuclear deterrence capability maintained by the military you oppose? Deeply think about why you still have right to free speech, and what it takes to sustain those rights.
What a uniquely American view of the world - yes the only reason you have free speech is by threatening to nuke out of existence the rest of the world lmfao get a load of yourself
Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not just admirable it’s the obvious position to take and any alternative is head scratching. It’s clear that this is mostly a glorified loyalty test over a practical ask by the administration. Strangely reminiscent of Soviet or Chinese policies where being agreeable to authority was more important than providing value to the state.
If it's a loyalty test then you'd think the DoD would be willing to let them "fail" and simply drop the contract, but instead they're threatening to label Anthropic a supply chain risk. If we're going by Occam's razor: it's Friday so Pete probably started drinking ~10:30-11am.
Everyone in the administration is completely drunk on power, they truly believe the government should be allowed to do whatever they please, despite being vehemently against previous governments telling their constituents what to do. Such nonsense, they hold no values, they only want complete power.
I don't know how the business leadership community could watch this whole affair and still be in support of them AT ALL. This is well past getting a crappy twitter rant from Trump on the weekend that maybe one could ignore until the next rant.