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

561–570 of 702 posts

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

#561

Post by phtrivier »

booleandilemma wrote: post #411
ozgung wrote: post #353

Do I understand this correctly: An algorithm, an ML model trained to predict next tokens to write meaningful text, is going to KILL actual humans by itself. So killing people is legal, Killing people by a random process is legal, A randomized algorithm deciding on who to kill is legal, And some of you think you are legally protected because they used the word “domestic”?

Is it possible the killing machine could hallucinate and kill some random, innocent person?

Verhoeven fans would simply call it "a glitch".

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

#562

Post by jobs_throwaway »

gabeh wrote: post #239

It's only $200 from me for the remainder of the year but you're not getting it anymore OpenAI. Voting with my wallet tonight. Really sad, I've followed OpenAI for years, way before ChatGPT. It's just too hard to true up my values with how they've behaved recently. This sucks. Goodnight everyone.

Just cancelled my Plus plan as well. I will still wait to see how things play out before deciding if I'll delete my account altogether, but OpenAI's actions simply don't align with my values at the moment. Very disappointing.

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

#563

Post by helpfulclippy »

slg wrote: post #389
tedsanders wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supply chain risk stuff is bogus. Anthropic is a great, trustworthy company, and no enemy of America. I genuinely root for Anthropic, because its success benefits consumers and all the charities that Anthropic employees have pledged equity toward. Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me. I can see argument…

>Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me. That isn't what many of us are challenging here. We're not concerned about OpenAI's ethics because they agreed to work with the government after Anthropic was mistreated. We're skeptical because it seems unlikely that those restrictions were such a third rail for the g…

I’m skeptical because while I can totally believe that the deal presently contains restrictive language, I can totally believe that OpenAI will abandon its ethical principles to create wealth for the people who control it. Sort of like how they used to be a non-profit that was, allegedly, about creating an Open AI, and now they’re sabotaging the entire world’s supply of RAM to discourage competition to their closed, paid model.

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

#564

Post by tuesdaynight »

otterley wrote: post #541
ukblewis wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, the U.S. government is fully entitled to serve them under the U.S. Department of War’s terms as per the Defense Production Act. The government has yet to do this, but a company acting in a way that the Department of War perceives as benefiting enemy states could certainly be a justification for declaring a supply chain risk. Anthropic’s decision timing as the U.S. has launched a war in the Middle East to save…

> a company acting in a way that the Department of War perceives as benefiting enemy states could certainly be a justification for declaring a supply chain risk. What’s the difference between a company not building something that’s fit for purpose for fighting a war (like a nursery refusing to build land mines), and thus not being a qualified supplier to the Government for conducting military operations, vs. being ta…

>Besides, as an Israeli, imagine a world in which the manufacturers of Zyklon B refused to sell Hitler their product for the purposes of gassing human beings. It might not have prevented the Holocaust, but at least maybe impeded it a little.

Honestly, if the Holocaust was today, we would probably get 10% of comments here trying to defend "both sides". Some people have a need to try to defend every side, even if one of the sides it's asking for them to be murdered.

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

#566

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#567

Post by andsoitis »

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…

Ted, what do you think of your CEO’s statement: “the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.”

The evidence seems to overwhelmingly point in the opposite direction.

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

#568

Post by johnwheeler »

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…

I know the money is good, but if I were you (or any OpenAI employee), I'd move over to Google or Anthropic posthaste.

Is it really worth the long-term risk being associated with Sam Altman when the other firms would willingly take you and probably give you a pay bump to boot?

It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would want to associate themselves with Altman. He is universally distrusted. No one believes anything he says. It's insane to work with a person who PG, Ilya, Murati, Musk have all designated a liar and just general creep.

Defending him or the firms actions instantly makes you look terrible, like you'll gladly take the "Elites vs UBI recipients" his vision propagates.

Shame on you people. What a disgusting vision.

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

#569

Post by WarmWash »

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…

From a level headed outside perspective

It looks like Anthropic likely wanted to be able to verify the terms on their own volition whereas OpenAI was fine with letting the government police themselves.

From the DoD perspective they don't want a situation, like, a target is being tracked, and then the screen goes black because the Anthropic committee decided this is out of bounds.

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

#570

Post by remarkEon »

sillyfluke wrote: post #503
retsibsi wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

This is not what I said, and not what the WaPo quoted. We're talking about the CEO, who is shall we say unfamiliar with war making, getting asked a hypothetical about how the product he sells would perform in a first strike scenario, and he reportedly gives what is an entirely legalese answer. Yes, I consider this a likely possibility. It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.
Post reply on HN