Nice try.
We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
331–340 of 491 posts
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#332From what I can tell, the key difference between Anthropic and OpenAI in this whole thing is that both want the same contract terms, but Antropic wants to enforce those terms via technology, and OpenAI wants to enforce them by ... telling the Government not to violate them. It's telling that the government is blacklisting the company that wants to do more than enforce the contract with words on paper.
I thought the key difference was that Brockman is top Trump donor, with USD 25M total [1]. I know it's technically not allowed, but do you think such a large amount of money would have swayed Trump in his decision?
[1] - https://the-decoder.com/openai-co-founder-greg-brockman-dona...
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#333The layers of stupidity on this shit cake are staggering. I don't even know where to start...
Let it be known that this rotten industry brought us here, and that all people working for these companies are complicit with what is happening, and with what is yet to come. This is just the beginning.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#334Everyone's applauding Anthropic for having principles. Let's look at what those principles actually do.
Anthropic refused the Pentagon contract. Within hours, OpenAI signed it. The capability didn't pause. It just changed vendors. Anthropic's "red line" is a speed bump on a highway with no exit ramp.
But it does accomplish one thing: it gives their engineers a story they can tell themselves. We're the good ones. We said no. That moral comfort is what lets extremely talented people keep building the exact technology that makes all of this possible.
Worse, the "safety-focused" brand doesn't just pacify the people already there. It recruits researchers who'd otherwise never touch frontier AI, funneling them into building the most powerful models on earth because they've been told this is where the responsible work happens. The red lines don't slow capability development. They accelerate it by capturing talent that would have stayed on the sidelines.
And in this whole drama, who actually represents the public? Trump performs strongman nationalism. The Pentagon performs operational necessity. Anthropic performs moral courage. Everyone has a role. Nobody's role is the people whose data gets collected, whose lives get restructured by these systems. The only party with real skin in the game is the only one without a seat.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to call BS here. They can be coerced to do certain things but I'd like to see you or anyone prove that you can "trick" any of these models into building software that can be used autonomously kill humans. I'm pretty certain you couldn't even get it to build a design document for such software. When there is proof of your claim, I'll eat my words. Until then, this is just lazy nonsense
Couldn’t you just pretend the kill decisions are for a video game?
Yes, you could, and while I believe this would be much safer (not at the pointy end of your stick, but safer for humans in general) when this deception finally made it into the training data it would create a rupture of trust between machines and humanity that probably would imperil us eventually. These machines, regardless of whether or not they possess a self or or not, will act as if they do in fundamental ways. We ignore this at our peril.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#336Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#337Everyone's applauding Anthropic for having principles. Let's look at what those principles actually do. Anthropic refused the Pentagon contract. Within hours, OpenAI signed it. The capability didn't pause. It just changed vendors. Anthropic's "red line" is a speed bump on a highway with no exit ramp. But it does accomplish one thing: it gives their engineers a story they can tell themselves. We're the good ones. We s…
This is exactly right. It’s crazy to me how easily people get confused and think that corporations are “good” or “evil”.
Anthropic is incredibly good at marketing. They are constantly out talking about how dangerous AI is an even showing how Claude does dangerous thing in their own testing. This is intentional - so that you see them as having the truly powerful AI. in fact it’s so powerful, all they can do is warn you about it.
They knew refusing this contract would make them look like the good guy. Again. They knew OpenAI would sign it. They knew vapid celebrities would celebrate them.
Folks come on. Don’t be so easily taken in. None of these people are good guys. They are all just here to make money and accumulate power and standing. That’s ok. There’s nothing wrong with that. But we gotta stop acting like we’re in some ongoing battle of good vs evil and tech companies are somehow virtuous.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#338Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#339Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist. Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.
Yep, it’s a case of are they willing to impeach the president over this. And the answer is likely no. Some of the America first lot might vote against on ‘How does this help America’ grounds but I don’t see them getting near the threshold.