Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is not losing money from inference. HN has told you the opposite repeatedly.
I was being sarcastic.
It is difficult to determine whether written text was meant to be sarcastic or not.
OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
421–430 of 702 posts
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#422I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
I few will leave. Most will look nervously at their (non-public) stock and their bank accounts, and continuing keeping on.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value i…
> it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened I think what you are missing is their annual comp with two commas in it.
Hey, with expected stock payout - tres commas!
Shit, I wonder if I still have any of those ‘tres commas club’ t-shirts lying around?
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#424We need some kind of group like "tech people with morals". I'm done with these people and their corruption and garbage.
It's why I think "software engineer" is a misnomer. We don't have a license, we don't have an ethics code, we don't sign off on stuff. In other disciplines, an engineer could topple a project they feel is unsafe or against code, and be backed by their union if replaced. A software engineer just says yes if their stocks aren't vested, and will be replaced if not.
Where can I read more about all the licensed engineers toppling unethical military projects?
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#425Plain and simple this is revenge for the Anthropic super bowl ads, which were epic burns against openAI's primary future revenue stream.
This seems like an exceptionally shallow reading of everything and everyone involved. You think OpenAI decided to build MurderBot because someone made fun on them selling ads?
I think it's plausible, given the effort he seemed to put into his initial response to the ads: https://x.com/sama/status/2019139174339928189
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#426I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
I would not discount how much of a factor, irrational human emotions play in negotiations.
Dario is arrogant and pompous so probably wound Hegseth up the wrong way. Sam is much more charming and amenable so more able to get his way despite similar terms.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like an exceptionally shallow reading of everything and everyone involved. You think OpenAI decided to build MurderBot because someone made fun on them selling ads?
I think it's plausible, given the effort he seemed to put into his initial response to the ads: https://x.com/sama/status/2019139174339928189
from the tweet above: "Maybe even more importantly: Anthropic wants to control what people do with AI—they block companies they don't like from using their coding product (including us), they want to write the rules themselves for what people can and can't use AI for, and now they also want to tell other companies what their business models can be."
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue compe…
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value i…
> while another agrees the the same terms that led to that
One of them needs to be investigated for corruption in the next few years. I’d have to assume anyone senior at OpenAI is negotiating indemnities for this.
Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#429More details on the difference between the OpenAI and Anthropic contracts from one of the Under Secretaries of State: >The axios article doesn’t have much detail and this is DoW’s decision, not mine. But if the contract defines the guardrails with reference to legal constraints (e.g. mass surveillance in contravention of specific authorities) rather than based on the purely subjective conditions included in Anthropic…
> More details on the difference...
Does the qualifier "domestic" for mass surveillance mean that OpenAI allows the use of its models for whatever isn't "domestic"?
... Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force ...Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network
#430I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue compe…
My understanding is that OpenAI's deal, and the deal others are signing, implicitly prevents the use of LLMs for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons because today one care argue those aren't legal and the deal is a blanket for allowing all lawful use.
Today it can't be used for mass surveillance, but the executive branch has all the authority it needs to later deem that lawful if it wishes to, the Patriot Act and others see to that.
Anthropic was making the limits contractually explicit, meaning the executive branch could change the line of lawfulness and still couldn't use Anthropic models for mass surveillance. That is where they got into a fight and that is where OpenAI and others can claim today that they still got the same agreement Anthropic wanted.