Sama and OpenAI, I am waiting on my data bundle to become available so I can delete my account. This has taken more than 48 hours - either you are getting hammered on deletion requests, or as usual you are playing games hoping I forget. I won't. People won't.
We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
401–410 of 491 posts
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#402Earlier 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…
Isn't it simpler to say that anthropic adopted a values based use approach and openai adopted a legal one? Or In other words you can get to decide two ways to use a lucrative property: 1. designate it private and draft usage of how you allow to use it, per your value system(as long as values don't violate any laws) 2. In face of competition, give up some values and agree to a legal definition of use that favors you.
What does 'a legal approach' mean where there is no rule of law? USA just bombed another country without having a domestic legal basis for that. Can't imagined they're holding back on AI use that is illegal -- even textbook-clear warcrimes (like blowing up shipwrecked people) does not give Hegseth and Trump pause.
That goes for domestic actions too, happy to arm a paramilitary and set them loose against citizens who are not politically aligned with Trump... the Republican Senate barely even blinks. Hard to imagine they'd care about AI use in mass surveillance, nor AI use in automated anti-personnel weapons. The Senate will be, 'Oh no they unlawfully killed USA citizens, again... Welp, let me check my insider trading gains... yh, seems fine'.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuremberg Defence for the 2020's will be "the Agent did it."
It will totally happen.
It already started:
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatb...
> the airline said the chatbot was a "separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions".
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#404The 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.
It's the DoW now, not DoD
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per levels.fyi, median salary of most openAI positions are above 300k. Even "technical writers" have a median pay of 197k. I searched around the internet and it seems like even entry level positions receive well above 150k. Apart from people with severe lifestyle bloat or an unholy number of dependents I doubt too many people working there will face immediate financial difficulties if they quit. Anyway, it is also am…
> OpenAI hires "technical writers" Mind blown. Isn't documentation a prime use case for "AI"?
As a technical writer who's spent a great deal of time recently editing AI-drafted documentation, this use case is not going to go as well as AI boosters think it is. :)
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it could have just been a genuine question. I'm not American and I've seen DoW used in newspapers and thought the name change was official. Personally I've thought it a more apt and honest name for what they do. But the backlash in the commments here show how ideologically charged the question seem to be.
> Or it could have just been a genuine question. Yes, exactly that’s why I wrote several examples to support why the chance for that is very-very slim.
Easier to work in hypotheticals than to do a bit of research like read the other comments. Just explained it was an honest question and why.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#407Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
Even your link doesn't say what you imply. > It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". There was not at attack on the United States.
I don't know why we're getting mired in the details here. The administration certainly isn't. We all work for trump now. Lawyers, journalists, universities, tech companies, state, local and foreign governments. Anything trump or one of his designated people wants, you need to do. If you start sputtering about your agency or your rights or your sovereignty, then expect as much shit thrown at you as the trump organization can muster. That's it, there is no legal justification. There are no fine points to argue. Obey or be punished.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or it could have just been a genuine question. Yes, exactly that’s why I wrote several examples to support why the chance for that is very-very slim.
Easier to work in hypotheticals than to do a bit of research like read the other comments. Just explained it was an honest question and why.
Do you really trust in random comments on the internet which states something to which the possibility is slim, because literally nobody cares why somebody calls the way it is, when that somebody knows both names, and when it's not political? I don't think that's optimal, and it's a hefty understatement of course.
Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk
#410[dead]