We Will Not Be Divided • Hacker News Board

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#831

Post by jasonlotito » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:33 PM UTC

khalic wrote: post #594

jachee wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, if you have big actions to show off, then show us how it’s done. You step up and start shooting at the heartless monsters running the first (US armed forces) and second (ICE) most well-funded militaries in the world. Go ahead. We’ll be right there behind you. (Yeah, I’m burning some hn karma for this, I imagine.)

Thank you for giving an example of what I’m talking about. You’re there fantasising about armed conflict when there are a million different actions one can take. But nope, only words, words and more words.

> only words, words and more words.

Your ignorance of reality does not define reality.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#832

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#833

Post by zugi » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:43 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #221

zugi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic does not object to its use for war. In fact Anthropic explicitly allows its semi-autonomous use in war, e.g. for identifying targets. They just won't permit its use for full autonomous war, yet, because they don't believe it's safe enough.

Since when has war been waged according to the whim of a corporation? The tools will be used however the government wants them to be used. The government makes the laws and wages the wars, and the corporation will follow the law whether it wants to or not. So either you are willing to work on a tool that is not under your control, or you are not.

It's an interesting development because wars haven't traditionally been waged predominantly with software. But soon perhaps they will be.

While the government is accustomed to complying with software licensing rules, indeed it is not accustomed to being limited in warfare, so the two have now come into an interesting conflict.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#834

Post by lerp-io » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:49 PM UTC

dakolli wrote: post #145

gslepak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares whether the "company" survives? I've seen this movie. A few of them in fact. We're on the chopping block here, lol.

Yeah, I find it funny how we're now defending these AI companies, when they're clearly still an enemy of the working class. They've made it incredibly clear their plans are to disenfranchise labor, and welcome in a world of God knows what with their technologies. Like they're making a stand on mass surveillance, this seems a bit like a red herring, cool they stop using their tools for war fighting, but continue to at…

i think ai is supposed to empower you to achieve more, maybe if you are looking for a tool to give you a job, it's not the right tool for you?

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#835

Post by pciexpgpu » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:59 PM UTC

The common people have viewed tech elites being out of touch. Tech elites have some sort of moral higher ground they like to espouse but rarely have the goods to show.

You are working on ads, slurping up data and trapping people into rage baits and dramas with an economy centered around marketing and influencer types.

I don't think these tech elites should decide arbitrarily by signing some fake elitist pledge.

The USA has a democratic way of resolving these things. It should not be in the hands of a few. The executive branch is a side effect of elections and should hold the line against these tech elites.

I don't agree with the essence of these nonsense pledges either: they are actively undermining the US while living and breathing here thanks to the most advanced military and defense systems on earth.

Why are these tech elites not including things like "we won't slurp up ad data" or "we will not work on dark patterns" because it's easy to come up with BS pledges and seem like 'we are so holier than thou'.

It is a bit infuriating because this resulted in the mess we are in. The income disparity between the tech elites (the entire tech industry) and the rest of the country is so huge that I don't think empty posturing and pledges and moral superiority matters.

I do not want to be associated with these elitist people who as a group are extremely educated, talented, impactful - but in one very very tiny piece in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't automatically make you the controller of the entire world's decisions.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#836

Post by ricksunny » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #531

This has much broader implications for the US economy and rule of law in the US. If government procurement rules intended for national security risks can be abused as a way to punish Anthropic for perceived lack of loyalty, why not any other company that displeases the administration like Apple or Amazon? This marks an important turning point for the US.

turning point? The episode is literally playing out the AEC's (read: war-footed government) 1954 Oppenheimer security-clearance hearing in real-time for a fresh modern-day audience.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#837

Post by kkotak » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #552

alopha wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump was threatening Netflix for having a democrat on the board last week. They seized 10% of Intel. They forced Nvidia to tithe 25% of China revenue into a slush fund. The FCC has been used to censor comedy. The ship has sailed and the only consequence has been hand-wringing.

But the Dow is over 50,000! That is, the money doesn't care so long as it's still profitable. When the recession comes a Democrat will be allowed back in to fix things. See Liz Truss.

Yes and it stands for the Department of War now.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#838

Post by ricksunny » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:22 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #19

My take is that none of the AI companies really care (companies can't care), they just realize that if they go down that road, public opinion will be so vehemently against AI in all forms that it will be regulated out of viability by the electorate. Also, if AI exists, AI will be used for war. The AI company employees are kidding themselves if they think otherwise, and yet they are still building it (as opposed to re…

OpenAI employee https://x.com/wesamo__/status/2027772549895995417 Wesam has done this.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#839

Post by jachee » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:32 PM UTC

lejalv wrote: post #655

jachee wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first 17 of those are all variations on “make words”. :P

Do you know how the deadliest conflict of the XXth century eventually came to be? The words of one Adolf Hitler. Don't dismiss words: they are the necessary link between (individual) thoughts and collective deeds. PS. Trump also got there with words: speeches, slogans, imprecations

I’m not the one saying “you lot only do words”, this one is:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47193041

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#840

Post by nullocator » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 10:44 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #759

gruez wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but rather the moral duties incumbent on citizens. Is it a "moral duty" to aid your government, especially in the current social/political environment? Conscription is theoretically still allowed in the US, and you're theoretically supposed to register for the SSS, but nobody has been prosecuted for failure to do so in decades. That suggests the "moral duty" aspect has significantly weakened. Moreover if we're makin…

If anyone thinks the moral justification for selective service has diminished, they should launch a campaign to repeal it and see how it goes over. I suspect that the non-prosecution more reflects the public’s leniency in the absence of major threats since the fall of the soviet union than a change in the underlying normative view. Conscientious objection still puts the ball in the government’s court. You have to mak…

> they should launch a campaign to repeal it and see how it goes over

You are conflating lack of true representation (what we have), with lack of support. It's very possible that the broad majority of the electorate would in fact get rid of conscription in the U.S. if they actually had a say in the matter? [1]

> I suspect that the non-prosecution more reflects the public’s leniency in the absence of major threats since the fall of the soviet union than a change in the underlying normative view.

Or more people are wising up to the reality that the real risk to their safety and security is from within not from without, its from people like you who would happily subjugate and violate your countrymen while telling them it's all for their own protection.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/28642/vast-majority-americans-o...