Our Agreement with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#51

Post by twtw99 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

SilverElfin wrote: post #7

OpenAI basically bribed the government into attacking Anthropic, via political donations to the MAGA PAC. They couldn’t not compete with an inferior product so Altman and Brockman went this route. As for OpenAI’s defense - not buying it. “OpenAI’s President Gave Millions to Trump. He Says It’s for Humanity”: https://www.wired.com/story/openai-president-greg-brockman-p...

Well..The fact they reached out and not the other way around says a lot.

"According to The Wall Street Journal, Anthropic approached 1789 Capital for a potential nine-figure investment during its Series G funding round in early 2026. The venture firm, where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner, ultimately declined the investment for ideological reasons. Read the full report at The Wall Street Journal."

[1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/woke-ai-spat-...

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#52

Post by nickysielicki » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#53

Post by marcellus23 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

rendx wrote: post #46

piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? What happened to "We give each other the freedom to hold beliefs and act accordingly unless it does harm"? How on earth did it come to something where the fra…

The GP's use of the word "impose" didn't seem perjorative to me or suggest that Anthropic is the offender and the government is the victim. I think you're reading a lot into a simple word choice and this response seems way too hostile.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#54

Post by notepad0x90 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #35

notepad0x90 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this very devious and insidious. What the executive branch believes is legal is the real agreement here. Trump can say anything is legal and that's that. There is no judicial overview, there are no lawyers defending the rights of those who are being harmed. Trump can tell the pentagon "everyone in minnesota is a potential insurrectionist, do mass surveillance on them under the patriot act and the insurrection act…

That view does seem to be consistent with Anthropic's. It's sad if true, since it implies a belief that the system cannot be just in modern contexts.

mass surveillance is explicitly unlawful in the US. it is in the bill of rights. By definition it is injustice under the law. Even for terrorists in the US they have to go through a FISA court and get warrants.

Consider this, the bill of rights stipulates that a soldier cannot be stationed on your property in times of peace, but in times of war it will be allowed. It makes exceptions for times of war. but even in times of war, 4th amendment's search and seizure protection don't have an exception. Even in times of insurrection and rebellion. To deliberately violate that for personal and political reasons, that in itself is treason. With that intent alone, even without action, it invalidates all legitimacy that government has. If a clause in a contract is broken, the contract is broken. The bill of rights is the contract between the people and their government that gives the government its powers to rule, in exchange for those rights. With the contract explicitly, deliberately and with provable malicious intent broken, the whole agreement is invalidated.

I'll even say this, the US military itself is on the hook if they stand by and let this happen.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#55

Post by randlet » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

caidan wrote: post #45

How incredibly unsurprising. This is why it is pointless to make moral stands as employees when you do not ultimately have power over the companies decisions. The only power you have is to quit. I wonder how many will do so, and how many will simply accept Sam’s AI written rationalization as this own and keep collecting their obscene pay packages…

> The only power you have is to quit.

This is an incredible power when exercised en-masse.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#56

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

rendx wrote: post #46

piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? What happened to "We give each other the freedom to hold beliefs and act accordingly unless it does harm"? How on earth did it come to something where the fra…

[deleted]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#57

Post by dgxyz » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

Added to the ever growing commercial product shit list.

I’m going to be left with scrap PCs and Debian at this rate.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#58

Post by piker » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

notepad0x90 wrote: post #54

piker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That view does seem to be consistent with Anthropic's. It's sad if true, since it implies a belief that the system cannot be just in modern contexts.

mass surveillance is explicitly unlawful in the US. it is in the bill of rights. By definition it is injustice under the law. Even for terrorists in the US they have to go through a FISA court and get warrants. Consider this, the bill of rights stipulates that a soldier cannot be stationed on your property in times of peace, but in times of war it will be allowed. It makes exceptions for times of war. but even in tim…

Right, which is probably the point made by the negotiators on behalf of the US Government. "We don't want Anthropic's standard, we want the Constitution."

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#59

Post by namuol » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

The timing of the release and the phrasing used in the headline: Woof.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#60

Post by tensor » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #30

NickNaraghi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That language is not consistent with: > No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems

That depends on whether you view the cited authorities as already prohibiting that usage. I don't have an opinion on that, but some folks on both sides of the isle might have strong arguments that they do.

It's still not consistent. OpenAI made a statement that simply isn't true. They agree to all lawful use, INCLUDING using it to deploy weapons as long as it's legal. It happens to not be legal at the moment, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed and authorized.