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

Post by coryodaniel » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 7:50 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #339

blueblisters wrote: post #154

My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAI But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this? For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provide…

Unless you're using an enterprise plan or pay per token, you're not hurting their business at all by cancelling. The consumer plans are heavily subsidised.

Post by askvictor » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 7:56 PM UTC

cedws wrote: post #253

blueblisters wrote: post #154

My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAI But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this? For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provide…

I think Altman probably rationalised it to himself by thinking that if he doesn’t do it, Musk/xAI will, and they give zero fucks about safety. So maybe he told himself that it’s better if OpenAI does it.

Post by Imustaskforhelp » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 8:05 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #640

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, even if that's the case Facebook was hiring 100 Million$ just a few months ago though even poaching from OpenAI and I do think that these employees will always have an easier time getting a decent job offer from major companies in general as well. They may or may not be making the same money but, I do think that their morals have to be priced in as well.

Getting a job offer is very different to raising a funding round.

Post by duzer65657 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 8:38 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #508

syllogism wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by impulser_ » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

xvector wrote: post #251

impulser_ wrote: post #153

For the people that don't understand how they got a deal with the same redlines, it probably because OpenAI agreed to not question them. The safeguards are there, both parties agree now fuck off and let us use your model how we see fit. Anthropic probably made the mistake of questioning the Military's activities related to Claude after the Venezuela mission and wanted reassurance that the model wouldn't be used for t…

> I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week. Why? It is in the admin's interest to absolutely destroy Anthropic. Make them an example.