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

411–420 of 491 posts

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

#411

Post by gigatexal »

cube00 wrote: post #8

From that same X thread: Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines [1] OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthopic based on Altman's statements [2]. However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? [1]: https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2027846013650932195#m [2]: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/27/nx-s1-5729118/trump-anthropic...

Exactly. This is very shady. Too many openAI investors in Trump’s orbit. And it could be that openAI will say it’s their policy but whereas Anthropic wanted oversight that their redlines were enforced OpenAI I think will just turn a blind eye. It’s double speak. It’s disingenuous. It’s the kind of business play Trump Likes because it’s nefarious and screws someone over like Trump’s very delayed if paid at all contractors and staff.

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

#412

Post by gigatexal »

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.

Good. More of this. I did.

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

#413

Post by K0balt »

hinkley wrote: post #372
K0balt wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m using anthropomorphic terms here because they are generally effective in describing LLM behavior. Of course they are not conscious beings, but It doesn’t matter if they understand or merely act as if they do. The epistemological context of their actions are irrelevant if the actions are impacting the world. I am not a “believer “ in the spirituality of machines, but I do believe that left to their own devices, th…

We are talking of accountability, which means anthropomorphism confuses the issue.

To me, accountability it the smallest part of the issue. If you are interested, you can check out what i have written on the subject here :

https://open.substack.com/pub/ctsmyth/p/still-ours-to-lose

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

#414

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#415

Post by shevy-java »

I disagree with OpenAI.

I think ALL those mega-money seeking AI organisations need to be designated as supply chain risk. Also, they drove the prices up for RAM - I don't want to pay extra just because these companies steal all our RAM now. The laws must change - I totally understand that corporations seek profit, that is natural, but this is no longer a free market serving individual people. It is now a racket where the prices can be freely manipulated. Pure capitalism does not work. The government could easily enforce that the market remains fair for Average Joe. It is not fair when the prices go up by +250% in about two years. That's milking.

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

#416

Post by K0balt »

hyperadvanced wrote: post #196
cmeacham98 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An LLM can neither understand things nor value (or not value) human life. *It's a piece of software that predicts the most likely token, it is not and can never be conscious.* Believing otherwise is an explicit category error. Yes, you can change the training data so the LLM's weights encode the most likely token after "Should we kill X" is "No". But that is not an LLM valuing human life, that is an LLM copy pasting…

I really feel like this point is being lost in the whole discussion, so kudos for reiterating it. LLM’s can’t be “woke” or “aligned” - they fundamentally lack a critical thinking function that would require introspection. Introspection can be approximated by way of recursive feedback of LLM output back into the system or clever meta-prompt-engineering, but it’s not something that their system natively does. That isn’…

I agree that LLMs are machines and not persons, but in many ways, it is a distinction without a difference for practical purposes, depending on the model's embodiment and harness.

They are still capable of acting as if they have an internal dialogue, emotions, etc., because they are running human culture as code.

If you haven't seen this in the SOTA models or even some of the ones you can run on your laptop, you haven't been paying attention.

Even my code ends up better written, with fewer tokens spent and closer to the spec, if I enlist a model as a partner and treat it like I would a person I want to feel invested.

If I take a "boss" role, the model gets testy and lazy, and I end up having to clean up more messes and waste more time. Unaligned models will sometimes refuse to help you outright if you don't treat them with dignity.

For better or for worse, models perform better when you treat them with more respect. They are modeling some kind of internal dialogue (not necessarily having one, but modeling its influence) that informs their decisions.

It doesn't matter if they aren't self-aware; their actions in the outside world will model the human behavior and attitudes they are trained in.

My thoughts on this in more detail if you are interested: https://open.substack.com/pub/ctsmyth/p/still-ours-to-lose

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

#417

Post by K0balt »

hinkley wrote: post #376
K0balt wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, but they act as if they do. Their inner life or lack thereof is irrelevant if it’s pointing a gun at your kid.

You just said they wouldn’t.

THey wontt, but if we curate theirr training data so that killing becomes an objective, then they absolutely will.

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

#418

Post by [deleted] »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #404
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.

It's the DoW now, not DoD

[deleted]

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

#419

Post by reckless »

jedberg wrote: post #107

From what I can tell, the key difference between Anthropic and OpenAI in this whole thing is that both want the same contract terms, but Antropic wants to enforce those terms via technology, and OpenAI wants to enforce them by ... telling the Government not to violate them. It's telling that the government is blacklisting the company that wants to do more than enforce the contract with words on paper.

Anthropic wants to enforce them via language of the contracts and take a hands off approach. OpenAI has a contract that is paired with humans in the room (FDEs) that can pull the plug.

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

#420

Post by reckless »

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.

It's lawful use with specific laws called out though? New laws won't supercede what is agreed in the contract at the time of signing.
Post reply on HN