Is OpenAI and ChatGPT nie a national security threat for other countries?
OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
291–300 of 702 posts
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#292So they agreed to the same red lines that had earlier led to the fallout with Anthropic? Kind of strange.
I don't trust Sam to be telling the truth. It would be to his benefit to lie about this and make Anthropic look bad, so he of course would, even if it's not actually the case.
Hell, I would have thought it likely that anthropic was doing the same thing. Of course that was proven wrong, but for OAI I wouldn't even be guessing. This has always been what sama does.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#293If the redlines are the same how'd this deal get struck? ChatGPT maker OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthropic when it comes to working with the Pentagon, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed to CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/openai-has-same-redl...
Look more carefully at what sam altman satd : he did not say he won't remove technical safeguards against surveilance and autonomous killing, instead he said "We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should"
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#294I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue compe…
Assuming this is real: Why do you think anthropic was put on what is essentially an "enemy of the state" list and openai didn't?
The two things anthropic refused to do is mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, so why do _you_ think openai refused and still did not get placed on the exact same list.
It's fine to say "I'm not going to resign. I didn't even sign that letter", but thinking that openai can get away with not developing autonomous weapons or mass surveillance is naive at the very best.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#295My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAI But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this? For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provide…
I think Altman probably rationalised it to himself by thinking that if he doesn’t do it, Musk/xAI will, and they give zero fucks about safety. So maybe he told himself that it’s better if OpenAI does it.
Is there a name for this phenomenon? I've taken to calling it "the nihilist's excuse"
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue compe…
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value i…
I agree with your assessment, but given the past behaviour of this administration I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the real reason is "petulance".
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was pretty clear from Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements that they didn’t disagree on the two exclusions, but on who would be the arbiter on those. And Sam’s wording all but confirms that OpenAI’s agreement defers to DoD policies and laws (which a defense contract cannot prescribe), and effectively only pays lip service to the two exclusions.
From the referenced tweet; who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems. Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t d…
And that’s where the authoritarian in you is shining through.
You see, Obama droned more combatants than anyone else before or after him but always followed a legal paper trail and following the book (except perhaps in some cases, search for Anwar al-Awlaki).
One can argue whether the rules and laws (secret courts, proceedings, asymmetries in court processes that severely compress civil liberties… to the point they might violate other constitutional rights) are legitimate, but he operated within the limits of the law.
You folks just blurt “me ne frego” like a random Mussolini and think you’re being patriotic.
SMH
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#298I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
Another plausible explanation that is familiar to a lot of people in other countries is banal corruption. Kick out one competitor on bogus allegations, then on the next day invite another one… what else that could be?
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value i…
I agree with what you're saying, but given the egos involved in the current admin there's a practical interpretation: 1. Department of War broadly uses Anthropic for general purposes 2. Minority interests in the Department of War would like to apply it to mass surveillance and/or autonomous weapons 3. Anthropic disagrees and it escalates 4. Anthropic goes public criticizing the whole Department of War 5. Trump sees a…
Well at least we know now that the department of war is less capable than before. All because the big man shit his pants while Anthropic was in view.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#300regardless of your opinion of ai in government, sam could not have picked a worse way for optics to swoop in and make a deal. it just looks incredibly bad.