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

The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#91

Post by iepathos »

mayhemducks wrote: post #49

I'm really not understanding this. Doesn't the typical path for advanced technology making it into the hands of civilians start with military applications and end with it being modified for civilian use? If the Pentagon wants Anthropic's technology because it has desirable characteristics, can it not just train its own AI models? Why can't the Pentagon build data centers full of GPUs and hire some smart people like t…

The old path of 'military invents it, civilians eventually get it' (like the Space Race or early ARPANET) hasn't been true for decades. Today, almost all major technological leaps like the modern internet, search engines, smartphones, commercial drones, etc. start in the commercial consumer sector first. The global consumer market dwarfs the defense market, which means the private sector has vastly more capital for R&D. Government payscale caps out ~$190k-$200k/year for specialized roles without some congressional workaround. The top AI researchers at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google etc. make ~$1m-$5m+/year for total compensation. The government couldn't afford to hire the right talent and the right talent likely would refuse based on moral, ethical, and rational principles with the current government.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#92

Post by godelski »

Thrymr wrote: post #70
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #21

Techno futurist: 1. Builds tool extremely capable of mass surveillance and running autonomous warfighting capabilities. 2. Expresses shock — shock — when the Department of War insists on using the tool for mass surveillance and autonomous warfighting systems.

I don't doubt that Claude is capable of mass surveillance, but surely it is not too much of a stretch to say it may not be suitable for automated killbots?

  We kill people based on metadata 
  - General Hayden
  Former Director of NSA
  Former Director of CIA
This goes far beyond metadata...

[source] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL8_caB35Pg

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#93

Post by [deleted] »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #21

Techno futurist: 1. Builds tool extremely capable of mass surveillance and running autonomous warfighting capabilities. 2. Expresses shock — shock — when the Department of War insists on using the tool for mass surveillance and autonomous warfighting systems.

[deleted]

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#94

Post by kraussvonespy »

fogzen wrote: post #46

I can't help but compare what happened with nuclear physics to what will happen with ASI/AGI. We could have used nuclear energy to provide abundant, clean energy. Instead we used it for warfare to kill people. All the of the brightest minds and frontier technology was directed towards killing people. We could use AI for medical advances and to create a communist utopia without serfdom. But it's already looking like w…

Yep, they're playing the always popular "bomber gap" card.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#95

Post by wan23 »

kittikitti wrote: post #65

This is going to be a controversial take but I don't agree with Anthropic on this one. My gut instinct says that the Pentagon should back down, but my gut is wrong because of political bias. I can't claim to be serious about AI governance if Anthropic is able to sidestep the interests of the Pentagon, whoever might be in charge. Anthropic is not stronger than the US government, and it would set a dangerous precedent…

In America, the military isn't supposed to be in charge. They fought a revolution about it.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#96

Post by Balinares »

EA-3167 wrote: post #69
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #21

Techno futurist: 1. Builds tool extremely capable of mass surveillance and running autonomous warfighting capabilities. 2. Expresses shock — shock — when the Department of War insists on using the tool for mass surveillance and autonomous warfighting systems.

Step 1.5 is also the one being ignored by 95% of comments here: the leverage the Pentagon is using is the lucrative contract Anthropic signed with them. The only threat here is Anthropic sucking up less money from the DoD.

It's been amazing watching them cosplay ethicality while twisting themselves into knots attempting to justify selling their service to Satan.

Who could have predicted that Satan would turn around and screw them, outside of everyone ever. Maybe they should have asked a person instead of Claude.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#97

Post by mrandish »

CodingJeebus wrote: post #32
emsign wrote: post #3

So the Pentagon is strongarming a company into cooperation? That reminds of how my alcoholic neighbor used to treat his family. It's almost as if someone let a mean drunk be in charge of the Pentagon.

As if governments throughout history haven't constantly used threats to gain leverage? No need to take a personal shot at the guy in charge when this is SOP throughout the administration.

I don't like the "guy in charge" anyway but it's not clear the other major party would stand united against this if they were in power. While I believe they'd probably have hearings and debate it more, this may be one of those issues where the defense establishment usually gets what it wants no matter which party is in control. One party protesting an issue when they're in the minority can just be performative "point scoring" against their opposition - not a guarantee of what result they'd participate in engineering if they were in power.

Much like FISA court-enabled unaccountable surveillance, this may be another of the increasing number of things where neither major party is will actually stop it. In terms of real-world outcomes, it doesn't much matter whether the party in control has just enough of their members (in the safest seats) vote with the minority to pass an unpopular measure or if they all vote for it. When the votes are stage managed in advance, the count being close is merely optics to further the narrative that the two major parties represent meaningfully different outcomes on every major issue.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#98

Post by foogazi »

basch wrote: post #33
emsign wrote: post #3

So the Pentagon is strongarming a company into cooperation? That reminds of how my alcoholic neighbor used to treat his family. It's almost as if someone let a mean drunk be in charge of the Pentagon.

Without reading every word of every embedded tweet, a part missing from the conversation is HOW they are strongarming. It isn't in private. It's a public threat in the court of public opinion to apply societal pressure on the company. They are attempting to reshape Anthropic's decision into a tribal one, and hurt the brand's reputation within the tribe unless it capitulates.

> It isn't in private.

We don’t know this

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#99

Post by nickff »

ljm wrote: post #60
emsign wrote: post #3

So the Pentagon is strongarming a company into cooperation? That reminds of how my alcoholic neighbor used to treat his family. It's almost as if someone let a mean drunk be in charge of the Pentagon.

I wouldn't start up a new company in the US knowing that they are going full tyrant like this.

It seems like an unfortunate reality that being a government contractor puts any company in any country at the whim of their government. AFAIK every government has 'pulled the rug out' from at least some contractors at some point.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#100

Post by anon84873628 »

kittikitti wrote: post #65

This is going to be a controversial take but I don't agree with Anthropic on this one. My gut instinct says that the Pentagon should back down, but my gut is wrong because of political bias. I can't claim to be serious about AI governance if Anthropic is able to sidestep the interests of the Pentagon, whoever might be in charge. Anthropic is not stronger than the US government, and it would set a dangerous precedent…

It's not about following whoever is in charge, it's about making the moral choice.
Post reply on HN