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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 702 posts

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

#501

Post by xphos »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #436
cheonn638 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!" You underestimate how many top AI scientists are perfectly okay with building autonomous weapons systems and are not ashamed of it. Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year. Now note that many L7+ at OpenAI are making $10 million+ per year.

True that - everybody has a price.

I mean this is not actually true and the statement justifies and vindicates those that do sell out by saying of course anyone would. There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things.

A better way is to say you can always find a cheap sellout at least than the morally dammed cannot claim equality of belief

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

#502

Post by tao_oat »

KronisLV wrote: post #473

In an imaginary world, this would be a precursor to Anthropic coming to EU in a greater capacity and teaming up with Mistral, eventually leading to similar innovation and progress that DeepSeek forced upon the West, benefitting everyone in the long run. They seem to have the morals for it and the respect for human rights and life given their recent announcement (after some backtracking), unlike OpenAI. Sadly, that's…

I'd apply to work for Anthropic in a heartbeat if it was a European company.

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

#503

Post by sillyfluke »

retsibsi wrote: post #475
remarkEon wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any reason at all to believe the account of the unnamed "defence official"? Whatever your position on this administration, you know that it lies like the rest of us breathe. With a denial from the other side and a lack of any actual evidence, why should I give it non-negligible credence?

It is bizarre. I like how, "past performance predicts future performance" is supposed to apply to founders and companies but completely disregarded for a two term president and admin, as if we have no idea how they will operate in the future.

Anthropic, with its current war chest, is supposedly employeeing lawyers that are misunderstanding the Department of War? This is considered to be the likelier of possibilities, am I understanding this correctly?

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

#504

Post by johnbellone »

ukblewis wrote: post #457
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…

[flagged]

You believe who ever said that?

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

#505

Post by rancar2 »

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…

The founders are all on a first name basis. I’m surprised no one has noted that Anthropic and OpenAI winning together by giving the world two different choices, just like the US does in its political landscape. In this circumstance, OpenAI wins the local market for its government and aligned entities (while having the free consumer by a matter of cost dynamic for that ideal customer profile which is vary broad and similar to Google’s search audience where most their revenue still depends), while Anthropic is provided the global market and prosumer market where people can afford choice by paying for it.

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

#506

Post by bogtog »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #240
tedsanders wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did Sam Altman say that he wouldn't allow ChatGPT to be used for fully autonomous weapons? (Not quite the same as "human responsibility for use of force".) I don't want to overanalyze things but I also noticed his statement didn't say "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance." It said something that kind of gestured towards that, but it did…

Mr. Less-than-Consistently-Candid strikes again

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

#508

Post by xpe »

syllogism wrote: post #447
tfehring wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclosure, I'm a former OpenAI employee and current shareholder.) I have two qualms with this deal. First, Sam's tweet [0] reads as if this deal does not disallow autonomous weapons, but rather requires "human responsibility" for them. I don't think this is much of an assurance at all - obviously at some level a human must be responsible, but this is vague enough that I worry the responsible human could be very far…

I don't understand how any sort of deal is defensible in the circumstances. Government: "Anthropic, let us do whatever we want" Anthropic: "We have some minimal conditions." Government: "OpenAI, if we blast Anthropic into the sun, what sort of deal can we get?" OpenAI: "Uh well I guess I should ask for those conditions" Government: blasts Anthropic into the sun "Sure whatever, those conditions are okay...for now." By…

This is wise analysis. To summarize: appeasement of the Trump administration is a losing strategy. You won’t get what you want and you’ll get dragged down in the process.

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

#509

Post by xpe »

tfehring wrote: post #284
tedsanders wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

(Disclosure, I'm a former OpenAI employee and current shareholder.) I have two qualms with this deal. First, Sam's tweet [0] reads as if this deal does not disallow autonomous weapons, but rather requires "human responsibility" for them. I don't think this is much of an assurance at all - obviously at some level a human must be responsible, but this is vague enough that I worry the responsible human could be very far…

I’d like to see smart anonymous ways for people to cryptographically prove their claims. Who wants to help find or build such an attestation system?

I’m not accusing the above commenter of deception; I’m merely saying reasonable people are skeptical. There are classic game theory approaches to address cooperation failure modes. We have to use them. Apologies if this seems cryptic; I’m trying to be brief. It if doesn’t make sense just ask.

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

#510

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

pluc wrote: post #464
DANmode wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Review the signers https://notdivided.org

They've been deleted. For obvious reasons. You want to take a stand but you don't want to stop working for the people who do the things you don't want to do. It's all so very american. I'll put my name on but if it doesn't work remove my name so I don't get into trouble ok? Home of the brave.

What are you on about? The names are still there.
Post reply on HN