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

371–380 of 461 posts

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

#371

Post by jfengel »

nmfisher wrote: post #123
jfengel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're doing it against the terms of service (and publicly so), I can't pin that one on Anthropic. They've done lots wrong and maybe they shouldn't have gotten in bed with the military to begin with, but this illegal war is not theirs. It rests squarely with the President who declared it. (And with the military officers who are going along with it despite the violation of international law.)

> If they're doing it against the terms of service (and publicly so), I can't pin that one on Anthropic. Anthropic claim that superintelligence is coming, that unaligned AI is an existential threat to humanity, and they are the only ones responsible enough to control it. If that's your world view, why would you be willing to accept someone's word that they'll only Do Good Things with it? And not just "someone", someo…

Anybody who works with the military has to deal with that moral dilemma. Many people believe that the military has some legitimate use. They have to figure out for themselves how do deal with the the possibility that it can also be used illegitimately.

So I don't blame Anthropic for getting into bed with the military, and getting out when it got bad for them. A lot of military suppliers are facing a similar dilemma, I suspect. The army runs on its stomach, and I do not envy the people delivering pizzas to the Pentagon, knowing what room those pizzas are consumed in.

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

#372

Post by SirensOfTitan »

dmix wrote: post #158
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their data integration and sale allows for the government to surveil citizens without probable cause or warrants.

The solution is still no different than a decade ago. Far stricter laws on intelligence, federal and local police surveillance, and a reduction in executive power which oversteps checks and balances. There will always be another IT company willing to do integrations even if Palantir dies. Software isn’t going away.

Right. But this is about Anthropic -- a company frames itself as a responsible and ethical steward of LLM technology. They can't pretend that OpenAI is somehow morally bankrupt here while continuing to deal with companies that undermine peoples' civil liberties.

I'm also a little unsure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it's futile to rely on corporate leaders to commit to ethical acts, as there's always someone else who will debase themselves to make money? I think that solely relying on the state to regulate itself with respect to civil liberties is a fast path to despotism. The well-regulated state was always a partnership between ordinary people bravely standing up for their rights and the norms of the rules and laws that made it socially acceptable to do so.

If I'm grasping you correctly, I think you're right; however, this points to the rottenness of our culture's way of organizing labor: the optimization of the shareholder over everyone else leads to some really awful effects.

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

#373

Post by sigwinch »

thegreatpeter wrote: post #357
dolphinscorpion wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grok is chosen because Musk spent $250+ million to elect Trump and is expected to underwrite the 2026 elections. Also, a lot of Trumps and their friends are invested in SpaceX. So they give them money too, but use OpenAI or Claude. I have a feeling that the military likes Claude more

Didn’t they choose Anthropic first and then all of this happened so they were forced to go with Grok? Not adding up

We must conclude that they’re wary of Grok. Maybe it’s the incentive for bias and sabotage.

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

#374

Post by vasco »

_heimdall wrote: post #114
mrandish wrote: post #57

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…

I'd have money on OpenAI hiding behind the "all lawful use" phrasing to claim high levels of protection. He also claimed that they would build rules into the model the DoD would use, preventing misuse. Aka he claims OpenAI will quickly solve alignment and build it right in...I wouldn't hold my breath.

Alignment is with the user of the LLM not to some fuzzy interpretation of human rights. So solving alignment for the DoW is just "don't refuse to bomb people when I ask you".

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

#376

Post by squidbeak »

kelnos wrote: post #333
xvector wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also: 3. Talent migration to Anthropic. No serious researcher working towards AGI will want it to be in the hands of OpenAI anymore. They are all asking themselves: "do I trust Sam or Dario more with AGI/ASI?" and are finding the former lacking. It is already telling that Anthropic's models outperform OAI's with half the headcount and a fraction of the funding.

I think that's wishful thinking. Just because someone is a "serious" researcher (careful, sounds like a No True Scotsman coming up), it doesn't mean that they care about AI guardrails or safety, or think our current administration is immoral.

I don't - idealistic motives seems to be common among leading AI developers and researchers. It's totally realistic that Anthropic sticking to principle & taking a hit for it will give it an edge recruiting those idealistic types.

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

#377

Post by freejazz »

xvector wrote: post #191
freejazz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I wish people like you would actually talk to people at Anthropic, maybe interview with the company, actually engage with the real humans there before making blithe comments like this. Seriously, you're on HN, you can't possibly be that many degrees removed from someone at the company. In any case it's absolutely not "just marketing", it suffuses their whole culture, and it is genuine.

[flagged]

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

#378

Post by sigwinch »

jaredklewis wrote: post #259
mrandish wrote: post #57

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…

> DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. I think it’s also possible DoW didn’t care about the conditions but just wanted some pretext to punish Anthropic because Dario isn’t a Trump boot licker like the rest of the SV CEOs.

I think this is supported. Hegseth has said numerous things about curly hair. I read that his reaction to Dario started with his hair.

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

#379

Post by freejazz »

bryant wrote: post #43
elevation wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral disposition of the Anthropic leaders doesn't matter because they don't own the company. Investors won't idly watch them decimate billions in ROI by alienating the largest institutional customers on the planet.

> The moral disposition of the Anthropic leaders doesn't matter because they don't own the company. Investors won't idly watch them decimate billions in ROI by alienating the largest institutional customers on the planet. Anthropic is a Public Benefit Corporation chartered in Delaware, with an expressed commitment to "the responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity." S…

> So in theory (IANAL), investors can't easily bully Anthropic into abandoning their mission statement unless they can convince a court that Anthropic deliberately aimed to prioritize the cause over profit.

So why were they ever working with the military in the first instance, if that's the case? If you didn't gleam from OpenAI that it doesn't matter. Everyone is greedy and will jump ship for money if Anthropic does not get it for them.

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

#380

Post by _heimdall »

vasco wrote: post #374
_heimdall wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have money on OpenAI hiding behind the "all lawful use" phrasing to claim high levels of protection. He also claimed that they would build rules into the model the DoD would use, preventing misuse. Aka he claims OpenAI will quickly solve alignment and build it right in...I wouldn't hold my breath.

Alignment is with the user of the LLM not to some fuzzy interpretation of human rights. So solving alignment for the DoW is just "don't refuse to bomb people when I ask you".

That's absolutely not the definition people use for alignment. Safety discussions often circle around alignment because they are worried about AI doing things that are bad for humanity as a whole, not because it goes off track from any one user's goal. That would be terrible for safety if alignment meant I could ask to hack tha TSA and the LLM would do it.

Ignoring the definition, what would be required for individual alignment is exactly the same as collective alignment. The only difference is the goals and who writes them, for the LLM it is being somehow forced to follow those rules no matter what.

Post reply on HN