OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#481

Post by roflburger » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:12 PM UTC

tedsanders wrote: post #220

Imnimo wrote: post #16

I 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…

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#482

Post by darkstarsys » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:12 PM UTC

All of this, the news articles, the social media discussion, this very discussion, will be part of the training set for future AIs. What will they learn from this?

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#483

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

hananova wrote: post #419

latexr wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam has -6/100? How does that work? If you can go into the negatives, how low can you get?

Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100. It is a baseline of 0, good actions make it go up, bad actions make it go down.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#484

Post by righthand » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:16 PM UTC

Imnimo wrote: post #16

I 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.

Money buddy, they never cared. They didn’t care when they went back on their safety and guidance boards, they didn’t care when they tried to push Altman out, and these employees won’t care when the first AI nuke launches. Money, money, money so they don’t think about it later. It’s the exact same reason Facebook employees have given us the other side of surveillance hell.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#485

Post by abustamam » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:16 PM UTC

kotaKat wrote: post #393

az226 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Sam is a habitual liar.

And an abuser, but they keep covering that one up.

Are you talking about his sister?

https://x.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770

If so, I believe the lawsuit is still going on. I'm personally withholding judgment on him on this matter since I don't know the details.

But it's easy to criticize and judge him on other stuff he's said in public.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#486

Post by twistedpair » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:18 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #185

layer8 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that. In both cases, the two parties can claim to agree on the principles, but when push comes to shove, who decides on whether the principles are violated differs.

Seems Anthropic did not understand the questions they were asked. From the WaPo: >A defense official said the Pentagon’s technology chief whittled the debate down to a life-and-death nuclear scenario at a meeting last month: If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down? >It’s the kind of situation where technologi…

> could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?

What a joke. I suggest folks read up on the very poor performance of US ICBM interceptor systems. They're barely a coin flip, in ideal conditions. How is Claude going to help with that? Push the launch interceptor button faster? Maybe Claude can help design a better system, but it's not turning our existing poor systems into super capable systems by simply adding AI.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#487

Post by sumeno » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:19 PM UTC

booleandilemma wrote: post #411

ozgung wrote: post #353

Do I understand this correctly: An algorithm, an ML model trained to predict next tokens to write meaningful text, is going to KILL actual humans by itself. So killing people is legal, Killing people by a random process is legal, A randomized algorithm deciding on who to kill is legal, And some of you think you are legally protected because they used the word “domestic”?

Is it possible the killing machine could hallucinate and kill some random, innocent person?

It's incredibly unlikely that it won't do exactly that, although we'll be very lucky if it's just that and not a random, innocent city

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#488

Post by latexr » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:19 PM UTC

hananova wrote: post #419

latexr wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam has -6/100? How does that work? If you can go into the negatives, how low can you get?

Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100. It is a baseline of 0, good actions make it go up, bad actions make it go down.

> Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100.

It says it right on the homepage. Twice. Once for people, once for organisations. It’s right there in green: “BEST (SCORED OUT OF 100)”. And if you go into any of them, you see a score like N/100.

Found the methodology page, and it clarifies it goes from -100 to 100.

https://goodindex.org/methodology#:~:text=How%20Scoring%20Wo...

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#489

Post by KaiserPro » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:19 PM UTC

tedsanders wrote: post #248

baconner wrote: post #235

Earlier 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…

I agree it makes little sense, and I think if all players were rational it never would have played out this way. My understanding is that there are other reasons (i.e., beyond differing red lines) that made the OpenAI deal more palatable, but unfortunately the information shared with me has not been made public so I won't comment on specifics. I know that's unsatisfying, but I hope it serves as some very mild evidenc…

The problem is, the vague safeguards are not worth anything.

"we will comply with US law" The problem is, the US government does not actually comply with US law.

Re: OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

#490

Post by FrustratedMonky » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:22 PM UTC

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #280

baconner wrote: post #235

Earlier 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…

I agree with what you're saying, but given the egos involved in the current admin there's a practical interpretation: 1. Department of War broadly uses Anthropic for general purposes 2. Minority interests in the Department of War would like to apply it to mass surveillance and/or autonomous weapons 3. Anthropic disagrees and it escalates 4. Anthropic goes public criticizing the whole Department of War 5. Trump sees a…

That is pretty optimistic, i hope it is true, and just a miss-understanding.

But man, this blew up pretty fast for a miss-understanding in some negotiation. Something must have been said in those meetings to make anthropic go public.