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

291–300 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#291

Post by daveguy »

rootusrootus wrote: post #287
daveguy wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He can make the executive branch call it The Dumpty Bowl if he wants. That doesn't mean he has renamed it. He has zero power outside the executive branch. Fortunately the United States isn't yet ruled by decree.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#292

Post by [deleted] »

rootusrootus wrote: post #287
daveguy wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#293

Post by tootie »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #279
tootie wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not psychopaths. I recall it being rank and file who were concerned about their options or whatever. Greed is fundamental human behavior.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#294

Post by rootusrootus »

daveguy wrote: post #291
rootusrootus wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He can make the executive branch call it The Dumpty Bowl if he wants. That doesn't mean he has renamed it. He has zero power outside the executive branch. Fortunately the United States isn't yet ruled by decree.

The names are decided by the United States Board on Geographic Names, which is under the Department of the Interior, which is part of the executive branch. So yeah, he can make them rename it for the US. Sure, you can pedantically say that he can only force the entirety of the federal government to respect the name, and the State governments could refuse to abide by that, but what would be the point? AFAIK none have outright refused. And obviously private citizens can call things whatever the heck they want, though if they get too creative they may have trouble expressing themselves in a way that others will understand.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#295

Post by notepad0x90 »

fsmv wrote: post #270
notepad0x90 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

you're right, and those companies are traitors. But even then, I'm pretty sure they can't buy data enmasse to target a large number of americans without reason, but they could get around it by saying it's "just analysis of data", but they can only get around it that way because the judges are bought and paid for. When it suits them they interpret the constitution in the spirit it was written, when it doesn't according to the specific letters. The wording is clear on this:

"""

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"""

It doesn't matter how the right of the people to be secure against searches and seizures is implemented. If the government manages to cause that, they're in violation. For other amendments it is written with wording like "congress shall not" indicating the restriction is on the government, preventing it from doing specific things. In this case, any violation of search and seizure is unlawful.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#296

Post by satvikpendem »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #279
tootie wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

His own employees helped reinstate him, not the capital class which was actually the board that fired him.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#297

Post by AndrewKemendo »

satvikpendem wrote: post #296
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

His own employees helped reinstate him, not the capital class which was actually the board that fired him.

The board that fired him wasn’t really “the capital class” in the traditional sense. It was a nonprofit board with an unusual governance structure specifically designed to limit investor controlling. Ilya and Helen were acting on safety/governance concerns, arguably against the interests of capital (Microsoft, VCs).

Like literally he’s doing right now the thing that would not have been done had Ilya and the other board members retained their positions

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#298

Post by indianmouse »

This is bonkers to redirect the thought process. What does it do to prevent creating systems that has been mentioned in the guardrails? Nothing. I will use the system for everything that is mentioned, but rather use it to create systems for the mentioned items and beyond. Now that I've the power, I can use it for creating far more sinister systems with the help of an unlimited intelligence and beyond. I am god now. As simple as it sounds and as the AI systems evolve with more intelligence, more coverage, more tools, the easier my job is going to be. Isn't it unfair to see why such usage might go unchecked or even looked at? I've everything available inside my premises and no one (not even the creator will know what I'm using it for!) will get to know how and what for I'll using the systems for. While one might say it is applicable for any AI system and can argue against it, it is applicable for open source systems as well where one can remove the guardrails and use all the knowledge and intelligence that is available inside it.

God save this planet...

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#299

Post by burnJS »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #263
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.

Cool

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#300

Post by saghm »

pamcake wrote: post #148
saghm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. What if Anthropic's morals are "we won't sell someone a product for something that it's not realistically capable of doing with a high degree of success? The government can't do what something if it's literally impossible (e.g. "safe" backdoors in encryptio…

Isn't it more accurate here to consider OpenAI and Anthropic as service providers rather than a manufacturer of product?

My point is that they have far more knowledge about what the product is capable of and where its limitations lie than the government. A company expressing doubt that their product can be used safely for a given task even knowing the risk to their ability to make a sale for that exact purpose is far more trustworthy than potential buyer who claims they understand but also refuse to agree not to use it for that. I know this isn't a universally popular opinion, but I wish more companies acted responsible by not trying to maximize profits at the expense of social good.

I don't understand any interpretation of this whole saga that claims that Anthropic was acting selfishly here. I could at least understand (but would vehemently disagree with) a claim that it's bad for them not to be trying to sell something that they genuinely did not think was safe for the task it was being purchased for, but the idea that they're somehow "imposing" morals on the others is nonsensical to me. If anything, I'd expect that trying to sell a complex software system for a purpose it's unfit for might even receive scrutiny for potential fraud in a more healthy regulatory environment.

Post reply on HN