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

We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 491 posts

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#381

Post by foobarian »

germandiago wrote: post #322
AlexVranas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what th…

I am going to stop using ChatGPT immediately.

No no no use it more, make sure to use up as much tokens as possible. They do inference at a loss

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#382

Post by dawnerd »

slfnflctd wrote: post #348
dawnerd wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expand that to the mainstream media and social media are the real supply chain risks. Majority of the population only know what’s fed to them and when their tv channel of choice and algorithm decides what they see - that’s a huge problem for getting info out. Im not even sure how we can fix it, really.

There were at least some signs of some governments and other institutions trying to tackle the social media problem for a while... and then LLMs came along. The previous problems with people being in their own bubbles and being fed misinformation are being accelerated now. At this point it feels like it's going to have to get much worse before it gets better. I hope I live to see the part where it gets better.

If anyone wants an example of how quickly the algos can pin to into a group, there’s a YouTuber beenaminute that basically speed runs it.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#383

Post by mlyle »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #377
mlyle wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say or assert, so you can put it more clearly.

The tools are not good enough to be ethically deployed, least of all for surveillance. Just because Congress is failing to do its job doesn’t mean the executive branch should simply do what it wants under the guise of “national security.”

I think there's a notable distinction between "domestic mass-surveillance" and use in international intelligence gathering.

The poster said:

> Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border

It seems like Anthropic is ethically concerned about use of autonomous weapons anywhere, and by surveillance by a country against its own citizens. Countries spy on each other a lot, but the ethical implications and risks of international spying are substantially different vs. a country acting against its own citizenry.

Therefore, I think Anthropic's stance is A) ethically consistent, and B) not artificially constrained to the US (doesn't "end at the border"). There's room for disagreement and criticism, but I think this particular hyperbole is invalid.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#386

Post by throwaway5752 »

qwertox wrote: post #277

Then reject any offer from the DoW until things are fair. I wouldn't be surprised if Sam sucked up 100% to the DoW with an NDA and an obligation to lie. He and his pal Larry are absolutely in for these kind of deals. Zero moral compass.

Sam Altman has a well deserved reputation which he reinforced whenever he's given the opportunity to do so.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#387

Post by whattheheckheck »

Nevermark wrote: post #260
jmward01 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never used AI to generate an answer for HN but just this once I thought it would be good to hit ChatGPT specifically and ask it for 'a list of times Sam Altman has gone against his word.' Here was its response: Shift from Nonprofit Mission to For-Profit Orientation – OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit with a charter focused on “benefit to humanity,” but under Altman it created a capped-profit subsidiary, accept…

I found this interesting. But the best approach is start with LLM, then check every point yourself, and summarize with real links. The moment we are ok with LLM output just once, it won't be just once, and things get too murky.

And the powerful win even more

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#388

Post by brown9-2 »

siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

not to mention that the government is already bound against using things it buys for unlawful uses. Its a totally redundant clause in a contract that OpenAI is touting to confuse people.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#390

Post by tim333 »

K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

The models we have now don't do it because they are chatbots and have been told to be nice but really autonomous killing machines go back to landmines and just become more sophisticated at the killing as you improve the tech with things like guided missiles and AI guided drones in Ukraine.

The actors in war generally kill what they are told to whether they are machines or human soldiers, without much pondering sentience.

Post reply on HN