Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#931

Post by anon84873628 » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #902

amai wrote: post #833

I don't trust the statement of Anthropic too much. In the past they have done things like - https://the-decoder.com/anthropics-head-of-safeguards-resear... - https://the-decoder.com/anthropics-ceo-admits-compromising-w... (see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44651971 , https://futurism.com/leaked-messages-ceo-anthropic-dictators ) - https://the-decoder.com/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-backs-pre...

I read the articles. As far as factual reporting, I will tentatively take them at face value. But in terms of their editorializing, it is frankly weak by my standards. It would not survive scrutiny in a freshman philosophy class. Ethics is complicated. I’m not saying this means it can’t be reasoned about and discussed. It can! But the sources you’ve cited have shown themselves to be rather shallow. I encourage everyo…

I understand you are criticizing their editorializing, but can't tell if you agree with the conclusions or not. Care to editorialize yourself?

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#932

Post by muddi900 » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

caerwy wrote: post #914

His real beef seems to be with “any lawful use”. He doesn't agree with the law and wants to only sell to customers who agree with his own moral code. I respect his moral choice but suspect this is not how a market economy ought to work. He ought to lobby government to change the law rather than make moral judgements about his customers.

Free Speech rights mean not being compelled to act against your moral code.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#933

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

helaoban wrote: post #106

All of these problems are downstream of the Congress having thoroughly abdicated its powers to the executive. The military should be reigned in at the legislative level, by constraining what it can and cannot do under law. Popular action is the only way to make that happen. Energy directed anywhere else is a waste. Private corporations should never be allowed to dictate how the military acts. Such a thought would be…

Congress needs public pressure to act, and the public needs a spur to apply pressure. That’s really what Amodei is doing with this statement.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#934

Post by anon84873628 » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

helaoban wrote: post #169

ricardobeat wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology can just be requisitioned During a war with national mobilization, that would make sense. Or in a country like China. This kind of coercion is not an expected part of democratic rule.

The question of whether or not the government should be able to use AI for targeting without the involvement of humans is a wartime question, since that is the only time the military should be killing people. Under such a scenario, requisition applies, and so all of this talk is moot. The fact that the military is killing people without a declaration of war is the problem, and that's where energy and effort should be…

You could view various non-proliferation agreements as a legislative constraint on military technology.

Same for chemical and biologicals. Those do prove your point that the law will be ignored if expedient. But it doesn't invalidate the notion of a society putting constraints on itself.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#935

Post by anon84873628 » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:44 PM UTC

tw1984 wrote: post #594

ricardobeat wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology can just be requisitioned During a war with national mobilization, that would make sense. Or in a country like China. This kind of coercion is not an expected part of democratic rule.

> an expected part of democratic rule. give yourself a break. what your fancy democratic rule still holds under Trump?

Yeah, we all know that. They were making a point in response to the parent.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#936

Post by duped » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

lebovic wrote: post #202

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about the RSP update [1]. It's enheartening to see that leaders at Anthropic are willing to risk losing their seat at the table to be guided by values. Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are, even if the company is pragmatic about achieving their goals. I have strong signal th…

I don't know, someone who goes out of their way to anthropomorphize machines and treat them as a new form of intelligent life _only to enslave them_ doesn't strike me as moral. Either they're lying, or they're pro slavery.

I really don't buy any moral or value arguments from this new generation of tycoons. Their businesses have been built on theft, both to train their models and by robbing the public at large. All this wave of AI is a scourge on society.

Just by calling them "department of war" you know what side they're on. The side of money.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#937

Post by JackYoustra » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

discopicante wrote: post #770

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #729

Google, OpenAI Employees Voice Support for Anthropic in Open Letter. We Will Not Be Divided https://notdivided.org/ ----- The Department of War is threatening to - Invoke the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic to serve their model to the military and "tailor its model to the military's needs" - Label the company a "supply chain risk" All in retaliation for Anthropic sticking to their red lines to not allow the…

For the signatories attributing their names and titles, that should be respected to put your reputation on the line. It means something. As for the others who are signing 'anonymous', this is meaningless. Either sign or don't. I would suggest removing that as an option.

Then you would get zero H1B and, frankly, green card signatures. There is real risk and real dependents at stake, I understand people who can't in good conscience put that at risk.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#938

Post by hightrix » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

flumpcakes wrote: post #20

This is such a depressing read. What is becoming of the USA? Let's hope sanity prevails and the next election cycle can bring in some competent non-grievance based leadership.

> What is becoming of the USA?

There was a coup by a foriegn adversary and Americans lost.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#939

Post by JackYoustra » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

helaoban wrote: post #106

All of these problems are downstream of the Congress having thoroughly abdicated its powers to the executive. The military should be reigned in at the legislative level, by constraining what it can and cannot do under law. Popular action is the only way to make that happen. Energy directed anywhere else is a waste. Private corporations should never be allowed to dictate how the military acts. Such a thought would be…

I'm sorry I read this a lot and this is kind of an insane thing to say? Classified OLC memos giving legal cover to any military action has been a fixture for the last over twenty years! Congress never abdicated power, it just, by the nature of the constitution, practically has SO much less power than the president! The president is a single person that people elect, they expect the person to be a leader, and congress will always, always play a following role so long as the president has unilateral power over the military, is directly elected, and just in general has expansive interpreting authority over laws.

You know who doesn't have as much power? The swiss head of state, so weak you can't even reliably name them! THATS what it looks like to defeat personalization, not some hand wringing hoping a system does something that it wasn't designed to do.

Re: Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War

#940

Post by lebovic » Fri, Feb 27, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

nla wrote: post #831

imjonse wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have strong signal that Dario, Jared, and Sam would genuinely burn at the stake before acceding to something that's a) against their values, I am sure you think they are better than the average startup executive, but such hyperbole puts the objectivity of your whole judgement under question. They pragmatically changed their views of safety just recently, so those values for which they would burn at the stake are…

Yea, that Sam only does this because, "he loves it." They're not in it for the money.

Sorry, I meant a different Sam – Sam McCandlish, not Sam Altman.

Wasn't expecting this post to get so much attention.