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

OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 702 posts

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#341

Post by paganel »

toufka wrote: post #68
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Sam Altman said nicer things about Donald Trump. Maybe he promised that he would not revoke their API keys when Hegseth directs the military to seize ballots. Maybe he's jockeying for position to take over the government when AGI hits. Ultimately, I don't know how much the specific reasons matter. Pete Hegseth must be removed from office, OpenAI must be destroyed for their betrayal of the US public, that's all…

1) Another OpenAI cofounder (Brockman) gave Trump’s superPAC the largest ever individual donation of $25m. 2) Trump’s son in law (Kushner) has most of his net worth wrapped up in OpenAI.

> Trump’s son in law (Kushner) has most of his net worth wrapped up in OpenAI.

If true (too lazy to check but I honestly take your word for it), this should probably be bigger news. Not that the outright corruption when it comes to the highest position in the US Government constitutes news anymore, but because it puts the Government’s fight against Anthropic (and supposedly other potential OpenAI competitors) in a new light.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#342

Post by Rebuff5007 »

baconner wrote: post #235
tedsanders wrote: post #220

Earlier 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…

> it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened

I think what you are missing is their annual comp with two commas in it.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#343

Post by az226 »

baconner wrote: post #235
tedsanders wrote: post #220

Earlier 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…

And Sam is a habitual liar.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#344

Post by az226 »

tedsanders wrote: post #248
baconner wrote: post #235

Earlier 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 it makes little sense, and I think if all players were rational it never would have played out this way. My understanding is that there are other reasons (i.e., beyond differing red lines) that made the OpenAI deal more palatable, but unfortunately the information shared with me has not been made public so I won't comment on specifics. I know that's unsatisfying, but I hope it serves as some very mild evidenc…

Your ballooned unvested equity package is preventing you from seeing the difference between “our offering/deal is better” and “designated supply chain risk and threatening all companies who do business with the government to stop using Anthropic or will be similarly dropped” (which is well past what the designation limits). It’s easier being honest.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#345

Post by Hamuko »

manmal wrote: post #339
blueblisters wrote: post #154

My 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…

Unless you're using an enterprise plan or pay per token, you're not hurting their business at all by cancelling. The consumer plans are heavily subsidised.

Does it matter? These AI companies need to be able to prove that users are willing to pay at all, even if they're not paying a profitable amount of money. If investors see that they're dumping money into something that's not selling, why continue to do so?

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#346

Post by az226 »

spondyl wrote: post #329
tfehring wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclosure, I'm a former OpenAI employee and current shareholder.) I have two qualms with this deal. First, Sam's tweet [0] reads as if this deal does not disallow autonomous weapons, but rather requires "human responsibility" for them. I don't think this is much of an assurance at all - obviously at some level a human must be responsible, but this is vague enough that I worry the responsible human could be very far…

Jeremy Lewin's tweet referenced that "all lawful use" is the particular term that seems to be a particular sticking point. While I don't live in the US, I could imagine the US government arguing that third party doctrine[0] means that aggregation and bulk-analysis of say; phone record metadata is "lawful use" in that it isn't /technically/ unlawful, although it would be unethical. Another avenue might also be purchas…

The term lawful use is a joke to the current administration when they go after senators for sedition when reminding government employees to not carry out unlawful orders. It’s all so twisted.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#347

Post by jakeydus »

q3k wrote: post #308
tedsanders wrote: post #220

Earlier 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…

Coward.

Sometimes brevity is the heart of wit or whatever the line is.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#349

Post by bambax »

tedsanders wrote: post #220
Imnimo wrote: post #16

I 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…

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#350

Post by tjpnz »

manmal wrote: post #339
blueblisters wrote: post #154

My 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…

Unless you're using an enterprise plan or pay per token, you're not hurting their business at all by cancelling. The consumer plans are heavily subsidised.

It will hurt in future funding rounds if their subscriber metric is stalling or going backwards, regardless of how many of those subscriptions are profitable.
Post reply on HN