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

281–290 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#281

Post by enceladus06 »

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…

Previously Snowden leaked that the NSA and FBI accessed data directly from major U.S. internet companies. Now we have generative AI that can help identify targets much faster. IMO the government is amoral and interested in getting the best technology available, and integrating it into their systems. So the CEO etc can say one thing, and will do another.

Other nations including Israel and the PRC will also be working with their own implementations respectively because if they are not they know that everyone else is. So this is just basic game theory.

But the kicker is that 5y from now we will be able to run Codex 5.3x or Opus 4.6 on a $5000 mac studio, so nations states will want to immediately implement this kind of technology into their defense apparatus.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#282

Post by _alternator_ »

piker wrote: post #278
_alternator_ wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lim…

Ok I think we are largely in agreement, though perhaps missing the main point: Anthropic wanted restrictions above and beyond “all legal uses”. This was widely reported in the last few days.

OpenAI is passing off their deal as providing additional safeguards beyond “all legal uses” but the language they’ve released doesn’t seem to support that narrative. I’m incensed, and am attempting to point out the hypocrisy in the hopes that OAI gets some blowback for this cynical stunt.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#283

Post by ilyagr »

OpenAI's new safety restrictions are magnificent, though unfortunately hard to comprehend for those who are incompetent or stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

Life follows art even closer than I thought when this story first reminded me of Andersen.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#284

Post by eduction »

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…

Democracy doesn’t work so we should let a tech oligarchy run things? No thanks. I think it works better than that would.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#285

Post by eduction »

Darvon wrote: post #217
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”?

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?

Calm down, reactionary.

Yes our democratically appointed government gets to tell contractors what to do not vice versa. I’d much rather that than have the contractors run things. You think Blackwater, Lockheed, Mark Zuckerberg should dictate how our military works? Who is the fascist here?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#286

Post by eduction »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #262
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”?

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

Yes that’s precisely what I’m saying. The government should fully control the systems it buys.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#287

Post by rootusrootus »

daveguy wrote: post #272
DougN7 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Gulf of Mexico is not a good comparison, because he can rename that with an executive order, at least within the US. No legislation required.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#288

Post by eduction »

devinus wrote: post #252
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”?

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 retaliat…

Anthropic is free to set its own boundaries and military is free to say that’s absurd and we’re not buying things we cant control.

Are you going to tell a farmer they are violating John Deere’s rights for boycotting their enshittified tractors?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#289

Post by rootusrootus »

eduction wrote: post #285
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?

Calm down, reactionary. Yes our democratically appointed government gets to tell contractors what to do not vice versa. I’d much rather that than have the contractors run things. You think Blackwater, Lockheed, Mark Zuckerberg should dictate how our military works? Who is the fascist here?

I'm fine with the Dept of Defense deciding the terms of the contract are not acceptable to them and therefore not doing business with Anthropic. Where it becomes very much not okay is when they retaliate against (or coerce) Anthropic by assigning them the supply chain risk designation. This is not telling a contractor what to do, this is attempting to put them out of business.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#290

Post by piker »

_alternator_ wrote: post #282
piker wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lim…

Ok I think we are largely in agreement, though perhaps missing the main point: Anthropic wanted restrictions above and beyond “all legal uses”. This was widely reported in the last few days. OpenAI is passing off their deal as providing additional safeguards beyond “all legal uses” but the language they’ve released doesn’t seem to support that narrative. I’m incensed, and am attempting to point out the hypocrisy in t…

Ok, but I thought my analysis was pretty clear on that point:

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal.

Post reply on HN