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

How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#41

Post by randallsquared »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #6

> Anthropic’s enemies in the Pentagon, who had, months prior, convinced Trump that Anthropic was “woke” and should be banned for government use. That people in government speak like this is utterly absurd. The quote from Donald Trump's follow up tweet on t'social is considerably worse. This was all due to Antropic not wanting to take on a military contract, right? Or is it suggested its more to do with Mythos, but wh…

> This was all due to Antropic not wanting to take on a military contract, right?

No, they already had a contract (since 2024, revisited/renewed by the Trump admin in mid-2025) which included military usage. That contract, though, had some language about what Claude couldn't be used for, ostensibly because Anthropic was nervous about accuracy in lethal contexts. Hegseth and others were unhappy with the restrictions and wanted to just redo the contract to remove them. Anthropic didn't want that, at least with current models. Then everything blew up. Zvi has some great writeups with more than you probably want to know.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#42

Post by bigyabai »

jpadkins wrote: post #29
bigyabai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rather than some immediate plan to do things the contract prohibits. It's not like any legally questionable kidnappings or bombing campaigns were being planned at the time, right?

do you really think the bombings and kidnappings are new as of 2024? You think what we have been doing in the middle east and Guantanamo bay since 2001 are moral?

The only reason that I mention liability concerns is precisely because of Abu Ghraib, Snowden, et. al.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#43

Post by skissane »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
skissane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to distinguish between political rhetoric (“woke”) and the substance of the dispute The substance: traditionally, defense contracts don’t have clauses in them limiting what the military can do with the acquired technology. If Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann sell a missile system to the Pentagon, they don’t try to impose contractual limits on who the Pentagon can fire the missiles at. Now, for s…

> Anthropic, who argue AI is a fundamentally different technology They’re arguing it’s a service. I think Aramark could refuse to contract to provide employees to the U.S. military for a campaign on Chicago.

I think in practice contracts to provide civilian personnel to the Pentagon contain clauses limiting the nature and location of the work - the Pentagon can’t contract for a clerical assistant in DC and then demand they go to Iraq to provide physical security - it violates the nature of the agreed work and the agreed location.

But contracts for personnel generally don’t contain restrictions on use beyond that. If the clerical assistant for DC is asked to provide clerical help to a military planning team who are planning an assault on Chicago, they (and their employer) don’t have legal grounds to refuse. If you are contracted to provide clerical assistance to military planners, you can’t legally say “Baghdad is fine, but Chicago is a no”. Saying that is a breach of contract-unless the courts rule that planning the assault was itself illegal, and I doubt current SCOTUS majority would

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#44

Post by bediger4000 »

gmueckl wrote: post #38

OK, so they might want to review AI models - for what exactly? Is it to make sure that they have been properly lobotomized to become incapable of software security work? Is it to make sure that they only give true and factually accurate information (especially at a time where clearly only the government disseminates facts and truths to the public)? A properly compensated and sufficiently eloquent spin doctor can refr…

I assumed it was something like holding any new models for ransom. Pay Trump some crypto, and it gets s released. I suppose Trump could work both ends, competitors could bid on delaying someone else's model.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#45

Post by dylan604 »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #32
paulsutter wrote: post #4

Mythos. It's all about Mythos. Once they realized that DoW had locked themselves out of Mythos because of their beef with Anthropic, Trump invited Anthropic to the White House, and in that meeting they convinced Trump that Mythos is a big deal, and that China is distilling their models. Excited to have a powerful tool, now they are saying it should be used by Government agencies first, and therefore, regulation. Key…

*DoD, don’t use the regime’s illegitimate rebrand.

DoW is much more accurate for how it's being used. Are you one to continue using Twitter instead of calling it X?

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#46

Post by goosejuice »

austin-cheney wrote: post #21
paulsutter wrote: post #4

Mythos. It's all about Mythos. Once they realized that DoW had locked themselves out of Mythos because of their beef with Anthropic, Trump invited Anthropic to the White House, and in that meeting they convinced Trump that Mythos is a big deal, and that China is distilling their models. Excited to have a powerful tool, now they are saying it should be used by Government agencies first, and therefore, regulation. Key…

> when defense types hear something is DANGEROUS, they want more of it I have been doing defense work for almost 30 years and in my experience that is the opposite of true.

I would imagine that heightened fear/threat results in increased budgets. Is that not the case?

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#48

Post by cindyllm »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #40
SwellJoe wrote: post #28

Media always covers this administration as though it is normal, and making decisions based on rational policy analysis. Which never makes any sense, because that's not how this White House makes decisions. Trump wants more bribes, and the AI industry has all the money right now. So, he reckons he's owed a cut. The thing about a gangster with a protection racket is they're never going to stop. You pay them once, that…

The AI alas is part of reality, is programmed to assess truth (except Grok). There is no greater offense to this administration. This isn't just the usual grift and fury: this is personal, that the AI is allowed to say words that are not approved, not in favor of whatever the whim of the day is. By the loose alliances of world corrupting sinister forces focused on destruction of reality. That seeks Putinlandia Adam C…

[dead]

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#49

Post by geor9e »

johndhi wrote: post #33

I guess I'm the lone person who likes Sacks here. I do think it's probably true that his influence flagged after Mythos. But he'd already been moved to the science board when that dropped. It's very over stated and looking to act like he was fired, which he wasn't. An article about a person 'falling out of favor' is silly but I guess that's the vibe of the administration so fair enough.

I like him too. I only see him on the all-in podcast, though.

The headline apparently refers to the White House's recent desire to add a government vetting process to new models, whereas he wants less regulation.

If you click into the author's profile, you can see her other articles. At a glance it looks like 20% of her headlines over the years have been dedicated to David Sachs and how much he sucks. That must be what gets the clicks.

Re: How David Sacks crashed and burned in the White House

#50

Post by acdha »

jpadkins wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anthropic, who argue AI is a fundamentally different technology They’re arguing it’s a service. I think Aramark could refuse to contract to provide employees to the U.S. military for a campaign on Chicago.

legally and in practice, they cannot. Even considering the 4th amendment, in a time of war the military can commandeer a service as long as they are compensated.

Where’s the legal declaration of war, precisely?
Post reply on HN