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

Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#51

Post by dielll »

paganel wrote: post #15
thecrumb wrote: post #12

This will be an interesting test of money vs morals. Sadly I think we all know which one will win.

They'll for sure cave in because of this: > Pentagon officials also warned they would either use the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, or designate Anthropic a supply chain risk if the company didn’t comply with their demands. (...) > The supply chain risk designation is usually reserved for companies seen as extensions of foreign adversaries like Russia or China. It could severely impact Anthropic’s business…

Cwn someone explain to me like I'm 5 how the government would invoke defense act and force the company to tailor its model to the military's needs?

For physical goods, I understand, but for software how exactly Is this possible? Like will the government force them to provide API access for free? It's confusing

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#52

Post by tehjoker »

mg794613 wrote: post #16

It just seems every other day is wilder than the previous. It sure is interesting watching this dystopian speedrun.

The US is investing in AI technology to try to preserve the empire and its capitalists as its economic power is starting to be eclipsed. This was basically an inevitable move. The rush to replace workers, speed run the production of a superintelligence singleton with barely a thought for safety or whether anyone even wants this, etc all flows from this basic impulse.

If they are successful, they are going to shrink their base of people that buy into this system domestically even further, so they need to bank on an ever shrinking locus of support. Autonomous weapons and mass surveillance are a necessity if your population has become restive and unreliable. However, I think unless they attain a certain level of capability, this will accelerate popular anger rather than suppress it. If they shoot protestors with robots, it could cause an explosion of popular anger rather than scaring people into submission.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#53

Post by factotvm »

looperhacks wrote: post #34
perfmode wrote: post #23

> But Anthropic has concerns over two issues that it isn’t willing to drop, the source said: AI-controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens. Not a good look for the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is pretty high on my list of "institutions that are probably very interested in weapons and surveillance". I think it's more expected than a bad look

The important words are, American citizens. In times past, the thought of "waging war" against your own citizens would be a bad look.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#55

Post by ctoth »

startupsfail wrote: post #21
thecrumb wrote: post #12

This will be an interesting test of money vs morals. Sadly I think we all know which one will win.

It can be a win-win. Simply having a seat at the table can be a win.

No, compromising on your core thing that you care about for a "seat at the table" is not how you win. It is how you lose. It is how you lose the game, the metagame, and your soul. All at once.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#56

Post by sfink »

> During the conversation, Dario expressed appreciation for the Department’s work and thanked the Secretary for his service

Ouch, I wonder how he rationalized that "service" part. Maybe by internally rewriting it to "thank you for all the positive things you have done in your position so far"? The empty set is rhetorically convenient.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#57

Post by mbac32768 »

m_ke wrote: post #8

If OpenAI employees have an inch of spine left, they better demand Sama to take the same stance on this as Dario. No mass surveillance and no autonomous weapons.

You have to be a craven, hollowed out husk of a person if you let the DoD demand your AI be used for killing people or surveillance of Americans. Even if you believe America serves a positive role as world police, even if you're pro-Trump, you just have to see what a terrible precedent this sets.

Here's where I would expect the CEOs of the other AI labs to stand by Anthropic and say no.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#58

Post by mrits »

factotvm wrote: post #53
looperhacks wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pentagon is pretty high on my list of "institutions that are probably very interested in weapons and surveillance". I think it's more expected than a bad look

The important words are, American citizens . In times past, the thought of "waging war" against your own citizens would be a bad look.

When was that?

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#59

Post by chrisjj »

paganel wrote: post #15
thecrumb wrote: post #12

This will be an interesting test of money vs morals. Sadly I think we all know which one will win.

They'll for sure cave in because of this: > Pentagon officials also warned they would either use the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, or designate Anthropic a supply chain risk if the company didn’t comply with their demands. (...) > The supply chain risk designation is usually reserved for companies seen as extensions of foreign adversaries like Russia or China. It could severely impact Anthropic’s business…

> this is an existential threat for Anthropic.

Not at all. A US Govt. ban hands Anthrophic a great USP for customers worldwide.

Re: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

#60

Post by tbrownaw »

i_love_retros wrote: post #31

Are people seriously thinking of letting LLMs control weapons?

No.

But giving someone who isn't the government the power to tell the military what it can and can't do seems like something they should object to categorically rather than case-by-case.

Post reply on HN