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

Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#671

Post by lm28469 »

jama211 wrote: post #666
lm28469 wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk man, from the outside anthropic looks a lot like openai with a cute redisgn and Amodei like Altman with a slightly more human face mask, the same media manipulation, the same vague baseless affirmations about "something big is coming and we can't even describe it but trust us we need more money"

Good for you? You’re just talking about vibes. Vibes are a baseless thing to go on.

This is a wantrepreneur forum not a peer published scientific journal, my opinions about vibes matter as much as private companies PR campaigns

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#672

Post by [deleted] »

techblueberry wrote: post #418
helaoban wrote: post #106

All of these problems are downstream of the Congress having thoroughly abdicated its powers to the executive. The military should be reigned in at the legislative level, by constraining what it can and cannot do under law. Popular action is the only way to make that happen. Energy directed anywhere else is a waste. Private corporations should never be allowed to dictate how the military acts. Such a thought would be…

The private corporation is not dictating to the military, it’s setting the terms of the contract. The military is free to go sign a contract with a different company with different terms, but they didn’t, and now they want to change the terms after the contact was already signed. No mytholgization needed, just contract law.

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#673

Post by PeterStuer »

lebovic wrote: post #202

I 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…

As an insider, do you think this is Altman playing his infamous machiavellian skills on the DoD?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#674

Post by simoncion »

estearum wrote: post #300
quietbritishjim wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.

It's easy to resolve an alleged contradiction by just ignoring one half of it lol Try introducing DPA invocation into your analogy and let's see where it goes!

> Try introducing DPA invocation into your analogy and let's see where it goes!

When I introduce that, I see Anthropic's management getting Tiktok'ed.

It can be true that Anthropic's products are essential for national defense and also true that the management of the company are a supply chain risk.

Is any of that true? Well, so much of what has been done in the name of "national defense" & etc over the past many decades has clearly not been done for reasons that are true, so -when it comes to "national defense"- I don't think that the truth actually matters much at all.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#676

Post by michaelsshaw »

phgn wrote: post #643

> I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries. Was this written by the state department? How can you think that a “department of war” does anything remotely good? And only object to domestic AI surveillance?

The entire article is very American-brained.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#677

Post by lebovic »

bertylicious wrote: post #628
lebovic wrote: post #202

I 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…

"They're driven by values" is meaningless praise unless you qualify what these values are. The Nazis had values too, you know. They were even willing to die for them. One of the core values of the Catholic church is probably compassion. Except for the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by their clergy. So what core values led "Dario, Jared, and Sam" to work with a government that just tried to rename the DoD to "dep…

Yeah, values on their own don't lead to positive outcomes. I agree that many groups that are driven by ideals have still committed horrible acts.

I do think that they're acting with positive intent, though, and are motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI go well.

Many folks on HN seem to assume the primary motivation is purely chasing more money, which certainly isn't the case for for many – but not all – people at Anthropic.

That doesn't guarantee a good outcome, and there's still a hard road ahead.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#678

Post by miroljub »

lebovic wrote: post #202

I 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…

While many praise them for sticking to their values, it's also worth mentioning that their values are not everyone's values.

Of all major LLMs, Claude is perhaps the most closed and, subjectively, the most biased. Instead of striving for neutrality, Anthropic leadership's main concern is to push their values down people's throats and to ensure consistent bias in all their models.

I have a feeling they see themselves more as evangelists than scientists.

That makes their models unusable for me as general AI tools and only useful for coding.

If their biases match yours, good for you, but I'm glad we have many open Chinese models taking ground, which in the long run makes humanity more resistant to propaganda.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#679

Post by michaelsshaw »

levocardia wrote: post #139
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #33

Idk if the reporting was just biased before, but from what I saw is that this time last week, it was thought you couldn't use Anthropic to bring about harm, and now they're making it clear that they just don't want it used domestically and not fully autonomously. Like maybe it always was just this, but I feel every article I read, regardless of the spin angle, implied do no harm was pretty much one of the rules.

You, using normal Claude under the consumer ToS, cannot use it to make weapons, kill people, spy on adversaries, etc. The Pentagon, using War Claude, under their currently-existing contract, can use it to make weapons and spy on (foreign) adversaries, but not to (autonomously) kill people. I don't love this but I am even less excited about the CCP having WarKimi while we have no military AI.

Why be so worried about when the US is clearly the belligerent state that strikes others with impunity while China does no such thing?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#680

Post by wohoef »

Anthropic's two demands are: 1. No domestic mass surveillance 2. No autonomous killing

I'm wondering if 2. was added simply to justify them not cooperating. It's a lot easier to defend 1. + 2. than just 1. If in the future they do decide to cooperate with the DoW, they could settle on doing only mass surveillance, but no autonomous killings. This would be presented as a victory for both parties since they both partially get what they wanted, even though autonomous killing was never really on the table for either of them. Which is a big if given the current administration.

Post reply on HN