Our Agreement with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#91

Post by rozal » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

rendx wrote: post #46

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…

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? What happened to "We give each other the freedom to hold beliefs and act accordingly unless it does harm"? How on earth did it come to something where the fra…

[dead]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#92

Post by burnJS » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

As a stealth ceo of a profitable SaaS. This is a nice reminder for my company to wind down its relationship with OpenAI. I have no doubt Anthropic will eventually become evil but at least they have a backbone today.

Goodbye Sam.

Edit: Also, referring to the DOD as the Department of War is cringe.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#93

Post by notepad0x90 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

zmmmmm wrote: post #34

Saying that an entity with the power to make its own laws can use something for "all lawful purposes" is saying they can use it for anything.

It's a bit worse, because in the case of mass surveillance, they can't just make their own law, they need to make that law and have 2/3rds of US states sign off on a constitutional amendment.

Aiding someone while you know they're trying to break the law is conspiracy to break the law. OpenAI is culpable. You can't sue the government in many cases, but you can with OpenAI.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#94

Post by saghm » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:41 PM UTC

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…

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products.

What if Anthropic's morals are "we won't sell someone a product for something that it's not realistically capable of doing with a high degree of success? The government can't do what something if it's literally impossible (e.g. "safe" backdoors in encryption), but it's legal for them to attempt even when failure is predetermined. We don't know that's what's going on here, but you haven't provided any evidence that's sufficient to differentiate between those scenarios, so it's fairly misleading to phrase it as fact rather than conjecture.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#95

Post by lkey » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

morkalork wrote: post #70

rendx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? What happened to "We give each other the freedom to hold beliefs and act accordingly unless it does harm"? How on earth did it come to something where the fra…

[flagged]

I'd like to order one remedial first amendment education for this rage baiting user, who appeared fully formed from a conservative forum circa 2008.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#96

Post by nkassis » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:44 PM UTC

This blog post really doesn't make it sound any better there is no clear refusal to participate in the questionable uses Anthropic was against. Merely must be legal and must be tested.

This feels like IBM in the 1930s selling tabulating machines to the Germans and downplaying their knowledge of their use. They seem to want us to naively believe they won't use it for exactly what the military has always wanted, autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Further more there are much more mundane use they might make of the technology that is perfectly legal yet morally in gray areas.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#97

Post by dispersed » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:44 PM UTC

caidan wrote: post #45

How incredibly unsurprising. This is why it is pointless to make moral stands as employees when you do not ultimately have power over the companies decisions. The only power you have is to quit. I wonder how many will do so, and how many will simply accept Sam’s AI written rationalization as this own and keep collecting their obscene pay packages…

It's perhaps too late in this case, but this is what unions are for. Sam Altman + a handful of scabs can't keep the lights on at OpenAI if a critical mass of engineers refuse to work until this decision is reversed (or, even better, not made at all, since the union would be part of that process).

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#98

Post by nickysielicki » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

rendx wrote: post #46

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…

> OpenAI acceded to demands that the US Government can do whatever it wants that is legal. Anthropic wanted to impose its own morals into the use of its products. Excuse me, but what a fucked up perspective. "Impose its own morals into the use of its products"? What happened to "We give each other the freedom to hold beliefs and act accordingly unless it does harm"? How on earth did it come to something where the fra…

Nobody is saying that Anthropic has to shut down. They’re just saying that nobody taking government money can pay Anthropic for their service as a part of that contract. Anthropic still has the right to exist on their own terms, but their business model is based on rapidly-increasing enterprise subscriptions, which included public sector spending.

If Anthropic can survive on open source contributors shelling out $200/mo and private sector companies doing the same, the government wishes them well. But surely you agree the government has a right to determine how its budget is appropriated?

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#99

Post by wonnage » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

1121redblackgo wrote: post #82

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.

And behind the quitting decision is very little safety net and usually substantial financial obligations keeping people handcuffed. Something has to give. The power employees had during covid was the way it should be, or something more closely approximating that.

Ironically this ends up with Chinese H1Bs remaining loyal while Americans have to fall on their sword

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#100

Post by saghm » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

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?

> 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?

Yeah, there's a pretty strong case that anyone claiming to trust that the administration cares about operating in good faith with respect to the law is either delusional or lying.