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

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#451

Post by kgwxd »

01100011 wrote: post #433
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

We already have traditional CV algorithms and control systems that can reliably power autonomous weapons systems and they are more deterministic and reliable than "AI" or LLMs.

But then a person can be blamed for the outcome. We can't have that!

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#452

Post by taurath »

nubg wrote: post #67
qaid wrote: post #62

I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…

I think it's phrased just fine. It's not up to Dario to try to make absolute statements about the future.

> It's not up to Dario to try to make absolute statements about the future.

Thats insane to say, given that he's literally acting in the public sphere as the mouth of Sauron for how AI will grow so effective as to destroy almost everyone's jobs and AGI will take over our society and kill us all.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#453

Post by tosapple »

nerdsniper wrote: post #405
panarky wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the Defense Production Act force employees to continue working at Anthropic?

No. It really only binds the corporation, but it does hold the executives/directors personally responsible for compliance so they’d be under a lot of pressure to figure out how to fix enough leaks in the ship to keep it afloat. Any individual director/executive could quit with little issue, but if they all did in a way that compromised the corporations ability to function, the courts could potentially utilize injunct…

[dead]

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#454

Post by ninjagoo »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

Previous case of tangling with the Government.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OfZFJThiVLI

Jolly Boys - I Fought the Law

Overall, this seems like it might be a campaign contribution issue. The DoD/DoW is happy to accept supplier contracts that prevent them from repairing their own equipment during battle (ref. military testimony favoring right-to-repair laws [1] ), so corporate matters like this shouldn't really be coming to a head publicly.

[1] https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/icymi-...

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#455

Post by dartharva »

helaoban wrote: post #106

All of these problems are downstream of the Congress having thoroughly abdicated its powers to the executive. The military should be reigned in at the legislative level, by constraining what it can and cannot do under law. Popular action is the only way to make that happen. Energy directed anywhere else is a waste. Private corporations should never be allowed to dictate how the military acts. Such a thought would be…

> The military should be reigned in at the legislative level, by constraining what it can and cannot do under law.

Is there an example of such a system existing successfully in any other country of the world that has a standing army?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#456

Post by Lerc »

mandeepj wrote: post #442
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

First of all, there's no such thing as "Department of War". A department name change is legal/binding only after it's approved by the Senate. Senator Kelly is still calling it DoD (Department of Defense). > Mass domestic surveillance. Since when has DoD started getting involved with the internal affairs of the country? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

It's whatever what the people who have the power want to call it. What is written on a piece of paper is irrelevant if it is not acted upon.

If the rename gets struck down then they don't have the power. If it doesn't they have the power.

There are many dictatorships that built their power in the face of people claiming that they can't do what they planned because it was illegal.

Until they did it anyway.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#457

Post by paraschopra »

I’m very happy that Anthropic chose not to cave into US Dept of War’s demands but their statement has an ambiguity.

Does this mean they’d be ok to have their models be used for mass surveillance & autonomous weapons against OTHER countries?

A clarification would help.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#458

Post by culi »

mandeepj wrote: post #442
jjcm wrote: post #155

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…

First of all, there's no such thing as "Department of War". A department name change is legal/binding only after it's approved by the Senate. Senator Kelly is still calling it DoD (Department of Defense). > Mass domestic surveillance. Since when has DoD started getting involved with the internal affairs of the country? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

They've already spent millions on the name change. It's also the original name of the department. IMO it's a more honest name

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#459

Post by tz1490 »

xpe wrote: post #406
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. I doubt Trump is more than cursorily aware. Maybe Miller got in the idiot’s ear, who knows.

> It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. Care to convert this into a prediction?: are you predicting Hegseth will back down? > I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. ... what does this mean to you? What comes next? As SecDef/SecWar, Hegseth is the head of the Pentagon. He's pushing for this. Something like 2+ million people are under his authority. Do you think they will push back? Stonewall? One can view Hegs…

It matters because the whole media is selling this as a Pentagon initiative, while probably 75% in the Pentagon think this is snake oil just like the previous Microsoft VR goggles.

If they don't oppose directly, large bureaucracies know how to drag their feet until the midterms at least, if not until 2028. Soldiers literally dragged their feet at the glorious Trump military parade, when they walked disinterested and casually instead of marching.

Post reply on HN