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

Our Agreement with the Department of War

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#71

Post by kingo55 »

arppacket wrote: post #18
eoskx wrote: post #5

Not great? Seems kind of loose language? It isn't OpenAI saying no autonomous weapons use, but only that use must be consistent with laws, regulations, and department policies: "The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonom…

Exactly, they're letting the lawless administration decide what the lawful purposes and the policies in general are. The "human approval" will be someone clicking a YES button all the time, like Israeli officers did in the Gaza bombing.

"Vibe killing"

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#74

Post by notepad0x90 »

Hamuko wrote: post #29
piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

And who decides what's legal? The US was collecting illegal tariff revenue for ten months. Does OpenAI need to wait for the Supreme Court to strike down autonomous killbots?

That's the devil in the details. Sam altman's insult upon injury, treating the public as idiots on top of being a collaborator. The answer to your question is the government decides what is legal, as in the executive branch, in the pentagon the commander in chief decides. So essentially, they can do whatever they want so long as they call it legal.

As I said in a sibling comment, mass surveillance cannot be considered legal in the US under any context. not even war, emergency, terrorism, nuclear strike, national security reasons, imminent danger to the public,etc.. targeted surveillance can, scoped surveillance of a group of people can, but not mass surveillance. In other words Sam Altman is saying "This thing can never be legal short of a constitutional amendment, but so long as trump says it is, we'll look the other way".

What a two-faced this guy is!

I really hope Google poaches all his top engineers. If any of you are reading this, I ask you this, I get working for money, but will Google or Anthropic offer you all that much less? Consider the difference in pay when you put a price on your conscious.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#75

Post by jstummbillig »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #28
piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

No, this very devious and insidious. What the executive branch believes is legal is the real agreement here. Trump can say anything is legal and that's that. There is no judicial overview, there are no lawyers defending the rights of those who are being harmed. Trump can tell the pentagon "everyone in minnesota is a potential insurrectionist, do mass surveillance on them under the patriot act and the insurrection act…

> Trump can tell the pentagon "everyone in minnesota is a potential insurrectionist, do mass surveillance on them under the patriot act and the insurrection act".

This is just incoherent. You can't have US companies fix an unhinged US government.

If the government runs wild, there are some serious questions to be asked at a state level, about how that could happen, how to fix it quickly and how to prevent it in the future – but I should hope none of them concern themselves with the ideas of individual company owners, because if the government can de fact do what it wants regardless of legality the next thing that this government does could simply be pointing increasingly non-metaphorical guns at individual AI company functionaries.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#76

Post by piker »

tensor wrote: post #60
piker wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on whether you view the cited authorities as already prohibiting that usage. I don't have an opinion on that, but some folks on both sides of the isle might have strong arguments that they do.

It's still not consistent. OpenAI made a statement that simply isn't true. They agree to all lawful use, INCLUDING using it to deploy weapons as long as it's legal. It happens to not be legal at the moment, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed and authorized.

That's a fair point, and I'm not so much defending sama's statements after the fact but rather trying to rationalize the OpenAI position.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#77

Post by twobitshifter »

piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

Even if the autonomous weapon systems ‘perform as intended’, this does not in any way mean that they are not an enormous danger.

Secondly, as that is department policy and not a law or regulation, they appear to be saying that the cited directive is presently the only thing standing between the DOD and the use of autonomous weapons.

If that’s the case how hard is it to change or alter a directive?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#78

Post by thundergolfer »

heliumtera wrote: post #66
randlet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only power you have is to quit. This is an incredible power when exercised en-masse.

I am sure openAI will struggle to find replacement for the lost headcount

At some point, yes, they absolutely would struggle.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#79

Post by kelseyfrog »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #54
piker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That view does seem to be consistent with Anthropic's. It's sad if true, since it implies a belief that the system cannot be just in modern contexts.

mass surveillance is explicitly unlawful in the US. it is in the bill of rights. By definition it is injustice under the law. Even for terrorists in the US they have to go through a FISA court and get warrants. Consider this, the bill of rights stipulates that a soldier cannot be stationed on your property in times of peace, but in times of war it will be allowed. It makes exceptions for times of war. but even in tim…

On the hook for what?

The current US government has a fundamentally different ontology for the derivation of human rights.

Wheras you and I likely agree that human rights are inalienable due to them being derived from the universe nature of human experience, the administration believes that human rights begin and end with them, the state. When they're the one able to affect the world with violence, it doesn't matter who's on the hook. The US electorate thought they could heal a status wound by authoritarianism instead of therapy and everyone else is paying the price.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#80

Post by fluidcruft »

bertil wrote: post #49
piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

Can their solution recommend to shoot at combatants lost at sea? This is key because it's the textbook example of a war crime. It's also something that the current administration has bragged doing dozens of times. More succinctly: who decides what is legal here? OpenAI, the Secretary of Defense, or a judge?

The more relevant question is who is held accountable for the war crimes? OpenAI seem pretty confident it won't be OpenAI.

I can see the logic if we were talking about dumb weapons--the old debate about guns don't kill people, people kill people. Except now we are in fact talking about guns that kill people.

Post reply on HN