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

We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 491 posts

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#301

Post by gchamonlive »

leereeves wrote: post #295
hdgvhicv wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.

That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

So the president can wage war without the Congress, but it can't officially rename the department that supports these wars autocratically. That's interesting.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#302

Post by devinus »

Nevermark wrote: post #247
_heimdall wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic demanded defining the redlines. OpenAI and others are hiding behind the veil of what is "lawful use" today. They aren't defining their own redlines and are ignoring the executive branch's authority to change what is "lawful" tomorrow.

Or the increasing impunity all three branches of government are giving themselves with regard to bad faith interpretations of the law, and a lack of government accountability when they color outside the lines. Much of the impunity is now Supreme Court settled law. We see clearly unconstitutional behavior every day, and there is no systematic, timely or effective, push back from any constitutionally enabled oversight.…

What exactly is considered "settled" law when the SCOTUS can unilaterally overturn Roe v. Wade overnight after almost 50 years of precedent?

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#304

Post by nashashmi »

leereeves wrote: post #295
hdgvhicv wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.

That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Iraq war was the last declared war. Afghanistan war was also declared.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#306

Post by g947o »

moogly wrote: post #55
g947o wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence that OpenAI is indeed losing significant number of subscribers, and it's not just some noise on HN?

I'd argue this damage control could be construed as a piece of evidence.

What damage control?

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#307

Post by happymellon »

Finbel wrote: post #289
hellzbellz123 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because most americans do not want war, at least id hope, so calling it that seems pretty short sited (maybe until you continually do that 'war' thing), if you want the citizens to look positively on your spending it should probably be for defense not war, again, at least i should hope. im just a dumb "lib" whatever that means

On the other hand calling it "Department of Defense" seems quite whitewashing of what it actually does.

It spends the defence budget...

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#308

Post by hackable_sand »

b112 wrote: post #280
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI hires "technical writers" Mind blown. Isn't documentation a prime use case for "AI"?

Have you ever seen the back of your head, without a mirror? Without two mirrors, actually? How can AI accurately describe itself in full?

Elephant.

Did it in one word, easy

What's next?

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#309

Post by rcxdude »

ed_mercer wrote: post #103
K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

>The models we have now will not do it, Except that they will, if you trick them which is trivial.

Also if you have the weights there are a multitude of approaches to remove safeguards. It's even quite easy to accidentally flip their 'good/evil' switch (e.g. the paper where they trained it to produce code with security problems and it then started going 'hitler was a pretty good guy, actually').

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#310

Post by _heimdall »

roxolotl wrote: post #136
_heimdall wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't my understanding. OpenAI and others are wanting to limit the government to doing what is lawful based on what laws the government writes. Anthropic is wanting to draw their own line on what is allowed regardless of laws passed.

I’m so confused by the focus on “all lawful use.” Yea of course a contract without terms of use implicitly is restricted by laws. But contracts with terms of use are incredibly common, if not almost every single contract ever signed.

"All lawful USS" in the hands of those that decide what is lawful is effectively a blank check. They want a terms of use that says "I do what I want."
Post reply on HN