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

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

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by mrguyorama »

surajrmal wrote: post #878
i_love_retros wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh what heroes! They wrote a letter! They will keep working at these scummy companies though taking their fat pay checks won't they

It's easier to affect change from within. Do you judge people for choosing to continue living in America?

No it isn't. A company is authoritarian by design. You cannot force change from the bottom because that is inherently designed against by the very concept of a corporation.

The control rests with the board and the executives. They have the control and the power and can make decisions.

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

#962

Post by wrs »

m000 wrote: post #281
nubg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's phrased just fine. It's not up to Dario to try to make absolute statements about the future.

How about the present and his personal beliefs? "I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries." This reads like his objection is not on "autocratic", but on "adversaries". Autocratic friends & family are cool with him. A clear wink to a certain administration with autocratic tendencies.

I thought this was ambiguously worded in a beautiful way. At the moment, one could say that some autocratic adversaries of the United States and other democracies currently lead the government of the United States.

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

#963

Post by MichaelDickens »

versteegen wrote: post #638
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…

> They pragmatically changed their views of safety just recently, so those values for which they would burn at the stake are very fluid. Yes it was a pragmatic change, no it was not a change in their values. The commentary here on HN about Anthropic's RSP change was completely off the mark. They "think these changes are the right thing for reducing AI risk, both from Anthropic and from other companies if they make si…

> Yes it was a pragmatic change, no it was not a change in their values. The commentary here on HN about Anthropic's RSP change was completely off the mark. They "think these changes are the right thing for reducing AI risk, both from Anthropic and from other companies if they make similar changes", as stated in this detailed discussion by Holden Karnofsky, who takes "significant responsibility for this change":

Can you imagine a world where Anthropic says "we are changing our RSP; we think this increases AI risk, but we want to make more money"?

The fact that they claim the new RSP reduces risk gives us approximately zero evidence that the new RSP reduces risk.

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

#964

Post by jug »

whstl wrote: post #700
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…

> Something I don't think is well understood on HN is how driven by ideals many folks at Anthropic are After 20 years of everyone in this industry saying "we want to make the world a better place" and doing the opposite, the problem here is not really related to people's "understanding". And before the default answer kicks in: this is not cynicism. Plenty of folks here on HN and elsewhere legitimately believe that it…

This is a component for sure, but also think of why Anthropic was born. It exists because of disagreements with OpenAI on the values of AI safety and principles.

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

#967

Post by toephu2 »

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…

"Altman Says OpenAI Is Working on Pentagon Deal Amid Anthropic Standoff"

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openais-sam-altman-calls-for-de-...

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

#968

Post by kvuj »

zb1plus wrote: post #346

It would be hilarious if the Europeans got everyone visas and gave some kind of tax benefit to Anthropic and poached the entire company.

Considering the money being spent in the US (approaching 1 Trillion per year in capex) for AI vs the EU, it would probably bring Europe close to bankruptcy, lol

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

#969

Post by exabrial »

khalic wrote: post #944
exabrial wrote: post #416

Brother in law did some "time with the brass" as he calls it. His take was that the DOD, er DOW would, as an example, never acquire a fighter jet that "wouldn't target and kill a civilian airliner", citing that on 9/11 we literally almost did that. The DOW is acquiring instruments of war, which is probably unconformable for a lot of people to consider. His conclusion was that the limits of use ought to be contractual…

lol so you think expecting the pentagon to follow a pinky swear is ok? Preposterous or downright dishonest

I didn't imply this either way.

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

#970

Post by ricardobeat »

wrqvrwvq wrote: post #317
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.

It has always been a part of democratic rule, in peacetime and war. All telco's share virtually all of their technology with the government. Governments in europe and elsewhere routinely requisition services from many of their large corporations. I think it's absurd to think llm's can meaningfully participate in realworld cmd+ctrl systems and the government already has access to ml-enhanced targeting capabilities. I…

Not the same thing. The parent comment was talking about government “requisiting” services as in forceful compliance, takeovers, not collaboration or regulatory compliance.
Post reply on HN