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

Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 461 posts

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#361

Post by JumpCrisscross »

don_esteban wrote: post #324
wilg wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you're saying here is the exact delusional cynicism that got us here. Stop.

Yes, my stance is cynical. Sadly, it is also factually correct (i.e. not delusional). Which of my statements are you contesting? From my point of view, your stance (play fairly, according to the rules set by your stronger opponent) is delusional. Note that the opponent is not 'republicans', but the whole ruling elites. And no, I can't help you, I am not USian, just an outside observer. Sadly, due to its weight, whate…

> it is also factually correct

No, it isn’t. Sanders’ supporters didn’t have the votes. That’s a fact.

If people believe in something, they should call their electeds and vote. The fact that a lot of people with a certain confluence of views (privacy, anti-war, et cetera) are too lazy to do either (regardless of post rationalization), but not self aware enough to not complain about it, is delusional cynicism.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#362

Post by Departed7405 »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #348
lukan wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden" Probably because most don't want to end up in russia?

I feel so sad about snowden sometimes. I tried reading his book's first few pages on how when he was growing up, he could be anyone in a forum and there was this sense of anonymity and at the same time, just freedom. And later on when he saw just how much the overreach of govt. was etc., he did what others couldn't. It wasn't as if there weren't any other contractors like Snowden, but there were no other whistleblowe…

I agree. What people forget is Snowden didn't intend to end up in Russia. He wanted to go from Hong Kong (where he tought he would be safe, but realised extradition still was an option) to Ecuador. But he feared US would intercept his plane if he went over US/US allies sky. So his plan was to go from HK to Russia, then to Cuba and finally Ecuador.

Russia stopped him because US had cancelled his passport.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#363

Post by JumpCrisscross »

don_esteban wrote: post #290
ori_b wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you vote in the primaries for a candidate that might change it?

Did democrats offer primaries in the last elections? Did voting for Bernie Sanders in the last two primaries (especially the ones when Trump won for the first time) amount to anything? I wonder how long can the American public keep the self delusion that the elections are anything but a theater for the naive, to keep the pretense the public has any say in things that matter. How much has the current administration as…

> How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran

Here is the 2026 Senate map [1]. Do you suggest any of them will flip over Iran? (I don’t. The folks who regularly vote simply don’t show any sign that this is a priority. Folks who stay at home grumbling don’t matter.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#364

Post by pbiggar »

pkaral wrote: post #358

There are various views on Dario's communication style etc. But in this, he is the guy we have been waiting for. The guy who is willing to say: "We built this company for America, and we're going to do what we believe is right for America, regardless of short term expediency." Also called having a spine. He has my respect for that

One issue is that he is indeed saying this is for America. But, like, there are many people in the world (most, even) who are not American. If companies are willing to throw non-American people under the bus, that's neither ethical nor good business practices.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#365

Post by le-mark »

fwipsy wrote: post #150
aardvarkr wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a $200M contract. That’s not nothing but it’s definitely not such a huge sum for these companies at their scale when they’re spending billions on infrastructure. I’m sure anthropic has signed up more revenue this week in response to this debacle to cover it. Where they’re actually screwed is if the gov follows through and declare anthropic a supply chain risk.

I think the point is that there's potentially a lot more than $200m in defense dollars at stake here, in the future.

There are certainly black budget dollars at stake as well, which are much more lucrative.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#366

Post by ethbr1 »

vhiremath4 wrote: post #276
solenoid0937 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I have to say I loved your thoughtful & detailed comment. You have clearly considered this from the financial side; let me add some color from the perspective of someone working with frontier researchers. > As the "alignment" folks on the AI industry are likely to learn I will push back here. Dario & co are not starry-eyed naive idealists as implied. This is a calculated decision to maximize their goal (safe A…

This is an interesting perspective. What happens if there is a large global war? Do researchers who were previously against working with the DoD end up flipping out of duty? Does the war budget go up? Does the DoD decide to lift any ban on Anthropic for the sake of getting the best model and does Anthropic warm its stance on not working with autonomous weapons systems? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but…

> 3. We just bombed Iran and killed their supreme leader.

Being accurate, by all reporting Israel killed Iran's leadership.

Yes, likely enabled by US intelligence, but the one who pulls the trigger does matter.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#367

Post by jfengel »

bko wrote: post #127
jfengel wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The law" is the contract. The Pentagon agreed to terms of service. The law is not on the Pentagon's side. The contract did not change; what changed is the Pentagon breaking the contract. Perhaps you think the law shouldn't allow such a contract; that's a valid position. But that's not what the law currently says.

I'm saying they shouldn't write in their contract that they have some veto power of how their software is used if it's within the law of the land (ie laws written by congress) Is that more clear?

Sure. And since they can't reach a contract they do agree on, there is no sale. They cannot be compelled to sign a contract that they do not agree to.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#368

Post by ethbr1 »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #284
sixothree wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hate to break it to you, but companies do have a right to determine how their products are used. You were subject to that when you wrote that comment. Did you not notice that?

No, I do not think they do. If a buy a car a run somebody over on purpose, the manufacturer has no right to come take my car away. Even if it were to be written in a contract.

You're confusing physical goods transactions with subscription access to a service.

One of the many reasons every company has tried to shift their business model to the latter: greater control over users.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#369

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

taurath wrote: post #40
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might match. The red line was domestic surveillance. You don't know what deal they had. Giving Anthropic the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Palantir said "Deal, we won't use your tool domestically".

Every single time the box is flipped over, whats inside is "more domestic surveillance". Who in their right mind would give the benefit of the doubt?

> Who in their right mind would give the benefit of the doubt?

I'm saying that we should give Anthropic the benefit of the doubt that when they say "our deal with Palantir doesn't cross our red line", we should believe Anthropic, that they have gotten an assurance from Palantir that they wouldn't use it domestically. I'm NOT saying we should give Palantir the benefit of the doubt.

I wasn't commenting on "is giving AI to Palantir a good idea" (I don't think it is), I was commenting on "should we conclude that Anthropic is being dishonest because they claimed they have red lines but work with Palantir" (I think it's unclear, but there's a plausible explanation in which they're not being dishonest, but possibly naive, so give them the benefit of the doubt).

Post reply on HN