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

691–700 of 702 posts

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

#691

Post by ozmodiar »

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 think the tragic thing is that not everyone has a price, just the vast majority.

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

#693

Post by randall »

Jensson wrote: post #670
randall wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don’t get it. what’s his motive in your view? he literally has no shares in openai.

Maybe he just wants power? Some people are just evil and don't need greed to fuel their evil ways.

even marvel villain thanos was given a plausible motivation.

i don’t think if you actually knew him as a person you’d think this was a reasonable perception.

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

#694

Post by sillyfluke »

remarkEon wrote: post #570
sillyfluke wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.

I think you're being highly speculative. The part you quoted from the WaPo doesn't even state the defense official was complaining about about any "legalese" reponse, that seems like a projection on your part. The only info you gave in your comment about what Dario said is only a defense official's paraphrasing. It seems a simply case of Dario refusing to give a blank check in all scenerios whereas the defense official, for maximum impact, chose to portray "not having a blank check" as "having to call Anthropic" in every case where "help" is given by an LLM. The appearance of "misunderstanding" you're seeing in the media is not about the parties' misunderstanding of what the other side wants, it's simply a fallout from each side fighting to control the narrative.

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

#695

Post by crowcroft »

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.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

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

#696

Post by nektro »

baconner wrote: post #235
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…

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…

> 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.

to be clear i think your assessment of this situation is likely, but it could also be the case that pete and co likes sam more than they do dario.

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

#697

Post by baconner »

nektro wrote: post #696
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…

> 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. to be clear i think your assessment of this situation is likely, but it could also be the case that pete and co likes sam more than they do dario.

I was trying to make no particular call on the actual reason aside from pointing at how obviously not the real story and false the statements made so far are. What a knot you have to tie yourself into to seek out an explanation where OpenAI has not made an ethical compromise to stay in the game here. I can stretch and think of some ways but they are far from the simplest explanation.

Lots of responses below give the likely real reasons most of which are probably true in part, but my opinion is it's the primary reason all who is in and who is out decisions are made by the trump administration - fealty. Skills, value brought, qualifications, etc. none of that matter above passing frequent loyalty tests, appealing to ego, bribes (sorry, i mean donations). Imagine thinking "hey, we'll work towards fully autonomous killbots because our adversaries will get them too but the tech isn't strong enough to allow them loose yet" or "yes you can use our ai for your panopticon surveillance, but just not on our own citizens because that is illegal" are lefty woke stances but here we are. Dario failed the loyalty test, as anyone rational would.

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

#698

Post by j_maffe »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #554
thejazzman wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it is more to-the-point to call it what it is and what the people running it with, i'll bet everything i have, absolute immunity, are doing and intend to do with it? It's like the one honest thing they've done

It is "honest" in the historical sense, certainly. But the executive-order driven name change just another bit of illegal/extra-legal/paralegal behavior by the administration that, every time we just nod along, eats away at the constitutional structure of our government. So don't go along with it.

Personally, as someone coming from a region that has suffered many times over by the actions of this so called "Ministry of Defense," I feel like "Department of War" is a more accurate and honest term.

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

#699

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

j_maffe wrote: post #698
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is "honest" in the historical sense, certainly. But the executive-order driven name change just another bit of illegal/extra-legal/paralegal behavior by the administration that, every time we just nod along, eats away at the constitutional structure of our government. So don't go along with it.

Personally, as someone coming from a region that has suffered many times over by the actions of this so called "Ministry of Defense," I feel like "Department of War" is a more accurate and honest term.

As I've noted multiple times here on HN, I don't disagree with this.

But the question is not about whether it is a more accurate and honest term. It is about people complying in advance with the illegal/extra-legal renaming of a federal agency by a president who does not have the right or authority to do so.

If we were talking about Congress voting to rename the DoD as the DoW, I'd have nothing to say on the matter that differed from your observation.

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

#700

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

charcircuit wrote: post #675
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law defines the name they should be using

It's not like there is a law that says they have to use that name on their X account or what domain to use for their website or emails.

Sure, no such law that I know of. But there's also no law that suggests that anybody else needs to refer to the Department of Defense using terms that the president and his minions just made up out of thin air. I'm also arguing that going along with them, by itself, is harmful to a democratic government.
Post reply on HN