371–380 of 912 posts
1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW. So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "
So you better just let the guys with the guns do whatever they want.
1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW. So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "
"The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place." So you better just let the guys with the guns do whatever they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something doesn’t make sense here. His tweet claims he has exactly the same restrictions that Anthropic had.
Well tweets aren't legally binding, so chances are he's just outright lying so they can have their cake (DoD contracts) and eat it too (no bad PR)
e.g. google project maven, microsoft hololens (military), and much much more
I simply do not understand why Americans tech companies and their employees will hew and cry about supporting the military. For those of you who support their position, have you ever stopped to consider that your safe, comfortable lives of free speech and protests and TikTok and food and gas and Amazon Next-Day deliveries is enabled by a massive nuclear deterrent operated by the very military you oppose? It is just s…
As Undersecretary Jeremy Lewin clarified today[1], these weighty decisions should not be made by activists inside companies, but made by laws and legitimate government.
[1]: https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd prefer to see board (or executive) level signatories over lay employees -- the people who can enforce enterprise policy rather than just voice their opinions Although it would be nice to have some high-level signees there, I think we shouldn’t minimize the role of lay employees in this matter. Without having someone knowledgeable enough to build and operate them, AI models are worthless to the C-suite.
I just hope that the non-executive co-signers aren’t all fired once Hedseth becomes Acting CEO of Google or OpenAI eventually when this administration commandeers both company in the name of National Security
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selective service activation, I.E. a draft. Requires an act of Congress. When did they enact a bill to draft Anthropic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 Great article, it has a list of times it's been used to compel cooperation.
Further, why would they also accuse them of being a national security threat in the same breath? Seems like if they're a threat they're also not someone you want working on national security. Especially under duress. That feels like a bad combination.
1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW. So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "
1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW. So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "
Something doesn’t make sense here. His tweet claims he has exactly the same restrictions that Anthropic had.
https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
https://xcancel.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/20275940728110982...
The OpenAI-DoW contract says "all lawful uses", and then reiterates the existing statutory limits on DoW operations. So it basically spells out in more detail what "all lawful uses" actually means under existing law. Of course, I expect it leaves interpreting that law up to the government, and Congress may change that law in the future.
Anthropic wanted to go beyond that. They wanted contractual limitations on those use cases that are stronger than the existing statutory limitations.
OpenAI has essentially agreed to a political fudge in which the Pentagon gets "all lawful uses" along with some ineffective language which sounds like what Anthropic wanted but is actually weaker. Anthropic wasn't willing to accept the fudge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that it’s about the contract allowing Anthropic to refuse service when they deem a red line has been crossed. Hegseth and friends probably don’t want any discussions to even start, about whether a red line may be in the process of being crossed, and having to answer to that. They don’t want the legality or ethicality of any operation to be under Anthropic’s purview at all.
I think you're right, this isn't about a specific request but about defense contractors not getting to draw moral red lines. Palmer Luckey's statement on X/Twitter reflects the same idea: https://x.com/PalmerLuckey/status/2027500334999081294 The thinking seems to be that you can't have every defense contractor coming in with their own, separate set of red lines that they can adjudicate themselves and enforce unilater…