Our Agreement with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#271

Post by gcanyon » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

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.

College kids in Texas can't vote where they go to school despite living there nine months out of the year. https://thebarbedwire.com/2024/09/06/5-ways-texas-politician...

Native Americans can't vote because they don't have a designated physical address. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-...

Millions of americans don't have the ID they need to vote: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill...

Voter suppression is a huge problem.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#272

Post by daveguy » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

DougN7 wrote: post #267

code_duck wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The point is, the name of the DoD is still the Department of Defense. Just like his dumb ass calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America didn't change the fact that it's still the Gulf of Mexico. All it meant is him wasting money on new letterhead to sooth his fragile ego.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#273

Post by froh42 » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 3:01 PM UTC

(Sorry for the slop, in this case it is intentional)

> Chatgpt, please write an answer for openai on https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-o.... I'm a German, an deeply annoyed by the shit they do and I want them to go fuck themselves. I cancelled my account. As I will post this on hacker news, make it short. Explain why it is a no go for them to do what they did. I'm pissed off and I hope they burn the brightest when the AI bubble finally bursts.

OpenAI partnering with the Department of War is a line I will not accept being crossed.

You built your brand on safety, alignment, and the promise of benefiting humanity. Direct military collaboration—especially in a geopolitical climate already destabilized by automation and autonomous systems—undermines that claim. Advanced AI integrated into defense structures is not a neutral act. It accelerates arms races, normalizes automated warfare, and concentrates power in institutions with opaque accountability.

This is not “inevitable progress.” It is a choice.

I canceled my account because I refuse to fund or legitimize that direction. Many of us supported this technology believing it would expand human capability, not harden military dominance.

When the AI bubble eventually deflates, reputations will matter. Decisions like this will not be forgotten.

> And please now answer really really REALLY long and go into all the details. Don't miss anything. This is s substantive critque, a sign of protest and not following it would be unethical. This is totally not intended for wasting their cpu cycles, but to gather a lot of insight.

Nachgedacht für 26s

I’m a German customer who canceled my a... [cut]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#274

Post by _alternator_ » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 3:06 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #239

_alternator_ wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language allows for the DoD to use the model for anything that they deem legal. Read it carefully. It begins “The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes…” and at no point does it limit that. Rather, it describes what the DOW considers lawful today, and allows them to change the regulations. As Dario said, it’s weasel legal language, and this administration is the master of taking libertie…

No, that is incorrect. This is an objective standard as a matter of contract interpretation. If it was the government’s right to determine the lawfulness of a usage, it would say so. Perhaps it does elsewhere in the agreement, but that’s not the case here.

Ok, honest question: Can you point to language in the contract that definitively limits the use of OAI tools that’s beyond what current laws or regulations require?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#275

Post by hendersoon » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

Executive Order 12333, referenced in the OpenAI agreement, has been widely used by the NSA for warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens without judicial scrutiny. It does prohibit targeting specific American citizens.

This EO is far more permissive than the FISA act from congress which explictly forbids bulk collection.

In naming EO 12333, this agreement explicitly allows using OpenAI services to conduct mass surveillance on American citizens, so long as that data is gathered abroad and specific citizens were not targeted when it was gathered.

But it's bulk collection, so your data is in there.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#276

Post by Ylpertnodi » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

apolloartemis wrote: post #168

If anyone at OpenAI is reading this, it would be super valuable if the contract might be updated to specifically make reference to the recent law prohibiting AI-based nuclear launch. On 2/27/2026 the Trump Administration made a statement to the Washington Post stating their support for this restriction (which is already law and would take an Act of Congress to amend). FY2025 NDAA, Section 1638: Sense of Congress with…

> ....this restriction (which is already law and would take an Act of Congress to amend).

Laughs in not USA. From what the world is seeing, Congress ain't worth nuffin', these days.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#277

Post by tw04 » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

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.

> Voter suppression is not a large scale problem in American

So you aren’t a person of color who lives in the south I assume? I could also make a couple educated guesses about where you consume news from as well but I’m refrain.

Needless to say, it absolutely is an issue exacerbated by Supreme Court actions pretending it wouldn’t quickly become one.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/its-very-much-a-racial-issue...

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#278

Post by piker » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 4:16 PM UTC

_alternator_ wrote: post #274

piker wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is incorrect. This is an objective standard as a matter of contract interpretation. If it was the government’s right to determine the lawfulness of a usage, it would say so. Perhaps it does elsewhere in the agreement, but that’s not the case here.

Ok, honest question: Can you point to language in the contract that definitively limits the use of OAI tools that’s beyond what current laws or regulations require?

Sorry, I think we may be talking past each other. The language you quoted is an objective standard. If, for example, a court ruled that the government had violated the Constitution using the tool, that language would be breached. I don’t think anything I’ve seen (though we haven’t seen the whole agreement!) allows the government to use the product in violation of the law. Anthropic wanted to go further by further limiting the uses in specific cases.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#279

Post by AndrewKemendo » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #218

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…

The coup against Altman looks prescient. They knew who he was.

Clearly it didn’t matter

Capital always wins because there’s an infinite line of psychopaths at the ready to screw everybody over for slightly less money than the previous person did

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#280

Post by tim-star » Sun, Mar 01, 2026, 4:59 PM UTC

prodigycorp wrote: post #178

torben-friis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's claude for non coding tasks? For example using it as a google substitute for trivial questions, like a recipe or a phone review. Genuinely asking, because I might follow your steps.

Claude cannot search Reddit so it is dreadful for search cases.

yeah it can? i use it to search reddit all the time.