Nothing brings home the Orwellian nature of USA 2026 more for me than the word "warfighter".
Just remember, we're not at war with Iran. The House Speaker said so.
Where things stand with the Department of War
51–60 of 862 posts
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#52Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#53Raised an eyebrow a little at this sentence: "Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences."
We - as a humanity - collectively recognized the weight of our creation, and decided to walk back
Discussing “AI alignment” in the same breadth as aligning with a “Department of War” (in any country) is simply not an intellectually sound position
None of the countries we’ve attacked this year pose an existential threat to humanity. In contrast, striking first and pulling Europe, Russia, and China into a hot war beginning in the Middle East surely poses a greater collective threat than bioweapons, sentient AI, or the other typical “AI alignment” concerns
Why aren’t there more dissidents among the researcher ranks?
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#54It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#55Nothing brings home the Orwellian nature of USA 2026 more for me than the word "warfighter".
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#56Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#57It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…
Watch as the same people pushing for war today will pretend they were always against it 10 years from now.
I guess we're just doomed to repeat the same cycles.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#58What's next, bribing Trump with gold bars and donations to "charity"?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47269649
"Amodei claimed that tensions between his company and the Trump administration stem partly from the firm’s refusal to financially support Trump and its approach to AI regulation and safety issues."
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#59It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…
Clearly, all of the traditional big leagues were lined up to take the Army's money. IBM, Control Data, Cray, SGI, and HP all viewed weapons research as a major line of business. DEC was the default minicomputer of the DoD and Sun created features to court the intelligence community including the DoD "Trusted Workstation". Sperry Rand defined "military industrial complex".
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#60Nothing brings home the Orwellian nature of USA 2026 more for me than the word "warfighter".
Just remember, we're not at war with Iran. The House Speaker said so.