[dead]
Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
501–510 of 1001 posts
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#502This makes me a very happy Claude Max subscriber. Finally, someone of consequence not kissing the ring. I hope this gives others courage to do the same.
The whole article reads as virtue signaling to me. Anthropic already has large defense contracts. Their models are already being used by the military. There's really no statement here.
A company being asked to violate their virtues refuses, and then communicates that to reestablish their commitment to said virtues?
Tell me more about what they should do if a virtue signal in such a situation is a nothing statement.
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#503I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…
> I have strong signal that Dario, Jared, and Sam would genuinely burn at the stake before acceding to something that's a) against their values, and b) they think is a net negative in the long term. (Many others, too, they're just well-known.) I very much doubt it judging by their actions, but let's assume that's cognitive dissonance and engage for a minute. What are those values that you're defending? Which one of t…
I think the path to the values you allude to includes affirming when flawed leaders take a stance.
Else it’s a race to the whataboutism bottom where we all, when forced to grapple with the consequences of our self-interests, choose ignorance and the safety of feeling like we are doing what’s best for us (while inching closer to collective danger).
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#504I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…
I wouldn't underestimate this as a good business decision either.
When the mass surveillance scandal, or first time a building with 100 innocent people get destroyed by autonomous AI, the company that built is gonna get blamed.
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is fascism
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic had the largest IP settlement ($1.5 billion) for stolen material and Amodei repeatedly predicted mass unemployment within 6 months due to AI. Without being bothered about it at all. It is a horrible and ruthless company and hearing a presumably rich ex-employee painting a rosy picture does not change anything.
Precisely Anthropic never explains they are fear-mongering for the incoming mass scale job loss while being the one who is at the full front rushing to realize it. So make no mistake: it is absolutely a zero sum game between you and Anthropic. To people like Dario, the elimination of the programmer job, isn’t something to worry, it is a cruel marketing ploy. They get so much money from Saudi and other gulf countries,…
>Anthropic never explains they are fear-mongering for the incoming mass scale job loss while being the one who is at the full front rushing to realize it.
Couldn't it also be true that they see this as inevitable, but want to be the ones to steer us to it safely?
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#507This 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...
The Senate??
Any law changing the name of the Defense Department would have to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (or by 2/3 of both Houses overriding a Presidential veto). The Senate has no such authority on its own.
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have strong signal that Dario, Jared, and Sam would genuinely burn at the stake before acceding to something that's a) against their values, and b) they think is a net negative in the long term. (Many others, too, they're just well-known.) I very much doubt it judging by their actions, but let's assume that's cognitive dissonance and engage for a minute. What are those values that you're defending? Which one of t…
How do you figure open sourcing everything eliminates risk? This makes visibility better for honest actors. But if a nefarious actor forks something privately and has resources, you can end up back in hell. I don't think we can bank on all of humanity acting in humanity's best interests right now.
We can bank on people acting in self-interest. The nefarious actor will find themselves opposed by millions of others that are not aligned with them, so it would be much more difficult for them to do things. It's like being covered by ants. The average alignment of those ants is the average alignment of humanity.
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#509[dead]
Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War
#510I have read the whole thing but I nonetheless want to focus on the second paragraph: > Anthropic has therefore worked proactively to deploy our models to the Department of War This should be a "have you noticed that the caps on our hats have skulls on it?" moment [1]. Even if one argues that the sentence should not be read literally (that is, that it's not literal war we're talking about), the only reason for calling…
What is their other possible move here, considering the government is threatening to destroy their business entirely?
> What is their other possible move here, considering the government is threatening to destroy their business entirely?
You must not be American, then. We all know that these corporate favoring contract terms are managed through campaign contributions; savvy?
Anthropic must have high school interns as govt liaisons, and not very bright ones