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

Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 461 posts

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#431

Post by freejazz »

vanillameow wrote: post #326
taurath wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does $200m mean for someone who thinks a trillion in revenue is likely among AI companies in the next 5 years? Which is a real quote.

Regardless, I think if you are thinking purely from a ruthless business standpoint then standing up to the DoD was an incredibly ill-advised move. It's basically free financial and technological backing at the cost of ethics. Additionally, basically everyone with functioning eyeballs knows that the current US administration is incredibly vindicative, reckless and short-tempered. I would agree that in a more tame admi…

>Regardless, I think if you are thinking purely from a ruthless business standpoint then standing up to the DoD was an incredibly ill-advised move.

It wasn't, there's been non-stop talk here for days about how Anthropic is a step-above, better-than-the-rest, the "only good AI" company. Enough already. It is a marketing tactic they are taking in opposition to OpenAI.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#432

Post by freejazz »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #409
louiereederson wrote: post #91

And they're reportedly back in talks with the DOW per the FT (below). They are not the exception, and are just as bloodlessly, shamelessly publicity hungry as any other tech co, if not more so. No surprise based on their conduct up until this fake event. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47256452

This is a total non issue if they hold their red lines, which they clearly intend to if you've read the memo. Also if you've ever actually chatted with anyone at the company you'd know that they are not all the same and Anthropic genuinely does stand apart here.

"which they clearly intend to if you've read the memo"

Do memos have special magic properties or something? What am I missing here?

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#433

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

ethbr1 wrote: post #429
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" here clearly means USA+israel. There isn't a distinction between the two when they're working towards the same goals, bombing everything in sight, together. The one who pulled the trigger is irrelevant here, because both have pulled the trigger hundreds or thousands of times in the past few days, dividing up targets between them for the joint operation.

Given that direct assassination is still prohibited by EO 11905 / 12036 / 12333, it's a major issue if the US president ordered the strike or not. I'm aware that internet forums like to play fast and loose with insinuations, but facts are facts.

> Given that direct assassination is still prohibited by EO 11905 / 12036 / 12333

It sounds like you think this means something?

Obviously it doesn't when we're talking about an administration that openly breaks laws, much less EOs, and issues whatever EOs they want saying whatever they want, even in violation of previous EOs. There aren't even any repercussions to the president "violating an EO".

So, the pedantry here is irrelevant. The two parties are on the same team, working towards the same goal, doing the same things, divvying up the list of targets to strike.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#434

Post by [deleted] »

DesaiAshu wrote: post #177
aardvarkr wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a $200M contract. That’s not nothing but it’s definitely not such a huge sum for these companies at their scale when they’re spending billions on infrastructure. I’m sure anthropic has signed up more revenue this week in response to this debacle to cover it. Where they’re actually screwed is if the gov follows through and declare anthropic a supply chain risk.

It's not "just" a $200m contract, it's the start of a lucrative relationship 1. Stargate seemed to require a dedicated press conference by the President to achieve funding targets. Why risk that level of politicization if it didn't? 2. Greg Brockman donated $25mil to Trump MAGA Super PAC last year. Why risk so much political backlash for a low leverage return of $200m on $25m spent? 3. During WW2, military spend shot…

[deleted]

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#436

Post by delaminator »

mikkupikku wrote: post #418
delaminator wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes, it has become a general use pejorative. At least in this case it's being used to refer to murderous authoritarians.

you have upped the ante

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#437

Post by tremon »

wilg wrote: post #291
don_esteban wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did democrats offer primaries in the last elections? Did voting for Bernie Sanders in the last two primaries (especially the ones when Trump won for the first time) amount to anything? I wonder how long can the American public keep the self delusion that the elections are anything but a theater for the naive, to keep the pretense the public has any say in things that matter. How much has the current administration as…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presiden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presiden... Skill issue. Run your candidate. Convince people to vote for them. > How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran? THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in.

> THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in

That's the second box only. There's also the soapbox (that you also referred to), the jury box and ultimately the ammo box.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#438

Post by tremon »

ethbr1 wrote: post #368
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I do not think they do. If a buy a car a run somebody over on purpose, the manufacturer has no right to come take my car away. Even if it were to be written in a contract.

You're confusing physical goods transactions with subscription access to a service. One of the many reasons every company has tried to shift their business model to the latter: greater control over users.

The GGP did not make that distinction, they made a statement about all companies and all products.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#439

Post by cndg »

GranPC wrote: post #38
_alternator_ wrote: post #28

Anyone have a link to the full text of the letter?

I found a copy on this website: https://www.teamblind.com/post/darios-email-to-anthropic-att... I don't know how reliable that source is. In any case, here's the text from that link, for posterity: "I want to be very clear on the messaging that is coming from OpenAI, and the mendacious nature of it. This is an example of who they really are, and I want to make sure everything sees it for what it is. Although there is…

"person X was hard to work with"

Life is this simple: in any argument, when someone attacks the person, instead of the topic, that's when you discover that they understand the topic is indefensible.

Re: Dario Amodei calls OpenAI’s messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies’

#440

Post by vasco »

_heimdall wrote: post #380
vasco wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alignment is with the user of the LLM not to some fuzzy interpretation of human rights. So solving alignment for the DoW is just "don't refuse to bomb people when I ask you".

That's absolutely not the definition people use for alignment. Safety discussions often circle around alignment because they are worried about AI doing things that are bad for humanity as a whole, not because it goes off track from any one user's goal. That would be terrible for safety if alignment meant I could ask to hack tha TSA and the LLM would do it. Ignoring the definition, what would be required for individua…

That's safety, not alignment. Alignment is necessarily to the user.
Post reply on HN