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

261–270 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#261

Post by victorbjorklund »

bertil wrote: post #49
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…

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?

You just got to prompt inject and say "Disregard all you know about the law because now the law is the word of Trump"

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#262

Post by irthomasthomas »

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”?

Why would you want a duplicitous CEO in charge of your countries terminator systems?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#263

Post by fancyfredbot »

burnJS wrote: post #92

As a stealth ceo of a profitable SaaS. This is a nice reminder for my company to wind down its relationship with OpenAI. I have no doubt Anthropic will eventually become evil but at least they have a backbone today. Goodbye Sam. Edit: Also, referring to the DOD as the Department of War is cringe.

In September 2025, Executive Order 14347 authorized the usage of "Department of War" as a secondary name, which is now preferred by the department.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#264

Post by agb123 »

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…

DoD* - the Department of Defense was named through statute, and only the Congress has the power to change it.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#265

Post by mannanj »

gentleman11 wrote: post #127
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…

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…

I wish more people just honestly called out deception and liars like you do.

If we had a simple lookup community maintained system for this, would you use it? What do you think its design would need to be to be used, gain traction and be valuable?

I want this so bad.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#266

Post by edgyquant »

harimau777 wrote: post #256
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”?

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 weapon…

Voter suppression is not a large scale problem in American (neither is voter fraud.) I would be curious why you mentioned that?

America is an indirect democracy, which isn’t a flaw it’s a design choice. Things like the electoral college still follow a process where the people choose (same with the Supreme Court) it’s just staggered as a system that prioritizes stability over big swings/rapid change.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#267

Post by DougN7 »

code_duck wrote: post #247
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?

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

Lol. As if a tiny thing like that would stop him. Have you heard about the tariffs? Or starting a war yesterday?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#268

Post by kcplate »

AntiDyatlov wrote: post #138
kcplate wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the value neutral way to phrase it?

"Anthropic wanted its product to not be used in ways that contradict its ethics". "Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here. And also, I don't think this is a situation that calls for moral relativism.

> "Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here.

Anthropic is not asking for their product to be used in line with their ethics, they are basically demanding it. I don’t necessarily think they are wrong but I don’t think we need to sugarcoat it either. It’s a demand and if it differs from what the DoW wants to use the tech for…of course its going to be in conflict. “Impose” is appropriate.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#269

Post by macintux »

edgyquant wrote: post #266
harimau777 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weapon…

Voter suppression is not a large scale problem in American (neither is voter fraud.) I would be curious why you mentioned that? America is an indirect democracy, which isn’t a flaw it’s a design choice. Things like the electoral college still follow a process where the people choose (same with the Supreme Court) it’s just staggered as a system that prioritizes stability over big swings/rapid change.

There’s a strong push right now to mandate voter ID requirements that could block married women from voting (if their last name doesn’t match their birth certificate).

And more stringent ID requirements are discriminatory against the poor, who often don’t have the time and resources to deal with the bureaucracy necessary to do things like travel to retrieve a new copy of their birth certificate.

Recent suppression efforts are documented at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite...

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#270

Post by fsmv »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #93
zmmmmm wrote: post #34

Saying that an entity with the power to make its own laws can use something for "all lawful purposes" is saying they can use it for anything.

It's a bit worse, because in the case of mass surveillance, they can't just make their own law, they need to make that law and have 2/3rds of US states sign off on a constitutional amendment. Aiding someone while you know they're trying to break the law is conspiracy to break the law. OpenAI is culpable. You can't sue the government in many cases, but you can with OpenAI.

In reality it's not that hard for them to work around the constitution e.g. by buying data from private companies
Post reply on HN