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

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#391

Post by ainch »

sbinnee wrote: post #291

As a non US citizen, this article sounds mildly concerning to me. My country is an ally of US. Good. But I don't know how I would feel when I start seeing Anthropic logos on every weapon we buy from US. Aside my concern, Dario Amodei seems really into politics. I have read a couple of his blog posts and listened to a couple of podcast interviews here and there. Every time I felt like he sounded more like a politician…

The most chilling thing imo is that Anthropic is the only lab that have said anything about this. Google and OpenAI presumably signed up to all these terms without any protest.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#392

Post by grosswait »

intermerda wrote: post #241
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#393

Post by jacquesm »

m000 wrote: post #281
nubg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's phrased just fine. It's not up to Dario to try to make absolute statements about the future.

How about the present and his personal beliefs? "I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries." This reads like his objection is not on "autocratic", but on "adversaries". Autocratic friends & family are cool with him. A clear wink to a certain administration with autocratic tendencies.

That all works right up until the United States becomes autocratic and that process is well underway.

So yes, the second part of your comment is what is going to come back to haunt them. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#396

Post by raincole »

crabmusket wrote: post #357
TaupeRanger wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you expect? The military is obviously going to develop the most powerful systems they can. Do you want a tech company to say “the military can never use our stuff for autonomous systems forever, the end”? What if Anthropic ends up developing the safest, most cost effective systems for that purpose?

> Do you want a tech company to say “the military can never use our stuff for autonomous systems forever, the end”? Yes. Absolutely.

And what? Get nationalized? Get labelled as terrorists?

The US system doesn't empower a company to say no. It should though.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#397

Post by cmrdporcupine »

dylan604 wrote: post #334
calvinmorrison wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mark my words, they will burn at some point. The government can nationalize it at any moment if they desire.

Would anyone pull a Pied Piper and choose to destroy the thing rather than let it be subverted? I know that's not exactly what PP did, but would a decision like that only ever happen in fiction?

It wouldn't need to. As sibling commenter pointed out... they'd have a massive exodus of talent, and they'd cease to make progress on new models and would be overtaken (arguably GPT 5.3 has already overtaken them).

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#399

Post by yunnpp »

lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

It's good to be driven by ideals, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

I think avg(HN) is mostly skeptical about the output, not that the input is corrupt or ill-meaning in this case. Although with other companies, one can't even take their claims seriously.

And in any case, this is difficult territory to navigate. I would not want to be in your spot.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#400

Post by snickerbockers »

lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

>I's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values.

I'm concerned that the context of the OP implies that they're making this declaration after they've already sold products. It specifically mentions already having products in classified networks. This is the sort of thing that they should have made clear before that happened. It's admirable (no pun intended) to have moral compunctions about how the military uses their products but unless it was already part of their agreement (which i very much doubt) they are not entitled them to countermand the military's chain of command by designing a product to not function in certain arbitrarily-designated circumstances.

Post reply on HN