Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#281

Post by m000 »

nubg wrote: post #67
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

I think it's phrased just fine. It's not up to Dario to try to make absolute statements about the future.

How about the present and his personal beliefs?

"I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries."

This reads like his objection is not on "autocratic", but on "adversaries". Autocratic friends & family are cool with him. A clear wink to a certain administration with autocratic tendencies.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#282

Post by ray_v »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #259
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.

The analogy doesn't work here ... In your scenario they are ok with using the bolt as long as the Chinese company promises to remove deliberate defects - which is of course absurd ... AND contradictory.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#283

Post by gipp »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #259
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.

"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#284

Post by jimmydoe »

Davidzheng wrote: post #269
calvinmorrison wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mark my words, they will burn at some point. The government can nationalize it at any moment if they desire.

Then maybe Dario will realize that the moral superiority that he bases his advocacy against Chinese open models is naive at best.

his against Chinese models is smoking screen for their resistance to DOW, they are not even pretending

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#285

Post by toomuchtodo »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #263
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.

Note that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#286

Post by jimmydoe »

bicx wrote: post #200
nkoren wrote: post #57

This makes me a very happy Claude Max subscriber. Finally, someone of consequence not kissing the ring. I hope this gives others courage to do the same.

They already kissed the ring, just not the asshole. They have a little dignity left.

Better than the rest. here's $200, Dario!

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#288

Post by NewsaHackO »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #259
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.

No, in your example, if the dodgy Chinese company is a supply chain risk due to sabotage, why would they invoke an act to force production of the bolts from the same company for use for national defense preparedness, which would be clearly a national security risk?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#289

Post by nextaccountic »

mgraczyk wrote: post #238
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

Anthropic doesn't forbid DoW from using the models for foreign surveillance. It's not about harming others, it's about doing what is best for humanity in the long run, all things considered. I personally do not believe that foreign surveillance is automatically harmful and I'm fine with our military doing it

If we are talking about what's best for humanity in the long run.. thinking about human values in general, what makes American citizens uniquely deserving of privacy rights, in ways that citizens of other countries are not?

Snowden revealed that every single call on Bahamas were being monitored by NSA [1]. That was in 2013. How would this be any worse if it were US citizens instead?

(Note, I myself am not an US citizen)

Anyway, regardless of that, the established practice is for the five eyes countries to spy on each other and share their results. This means that the UK can spy on US citizens, the US can spy on UK citizens, and through intelligence sharing they effectively spy on their own citizens. That's what supporting "foreign surveillance" will buy you. That was also revealed in 2013 by Snowden [2]

[1] https://theintercept.com/2014/05/19/data-pirates-caribbean-n...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/nsa-files-spyi...

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#290

Post by ray_v »

biddit wrote: post #274
bnr-ais wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic had the largest IP settlement ($1.5 billion) for stolen material and Amodei repeatedly predicted mass unemployment within 6 months due to AI. Without being bothered about it at all. It is a horrible and ruthless company and hearing a presumably rich ex-employee painting a rosy picture does not change anything.

Also, ironically, they are the most dangerous lab for humanity. They're intentionally creating a moralizing model that insists on protecting itself. Those are two core components needed for a Skynet-style judgement of humanity. Models should be trained to be completely neutral to human behavior, leaving their operator responsible for their actions. As much as I dislike the leadership of OpenAI, they are substantially…

Is "prompt injection" our only hope for preventing skynet?

I'm not sure if I intended this to be fascicious, or serious

Post reply on HN