991–1000 of 1001 posts
"In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome," Altman said in a post on X."
https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-reaches-deal-deploy-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
they could sign it with their blind username, which is verified by company email
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Plenty of folks here on HN and elsewhere legitimately believe that it's possible to do good with tech. But a billion dollar behemoth with great PR isn't that. To expand on that a bit, many of us (myself included) fully believe founders set out with lofty and good goals when organizations are small. Scale is power, and power corrupts. It's as simple as that. It's an exceptionally rare quality to resist that corrupti…
Scale is also what's killing jobs, ruining human relationships, fucking up societies. Et cetera.
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
Lovable, Spotify, DeepMind... there are lots of examples that show otherwise.
This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels u…
> two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security. They are only contradictory if you think about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I do think that most people who are making the important decisions at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and are genuinely motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well. in which case, these people will necessarily have to be the first to go, I suppose, once the board decides enough is enough. Refusing to do things that go against "company values" even if they risk damaging…
Shareholders do not control Anthropic's board, it is not structured like a typical corporation.
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…
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…
They love their dictator until it backfires, that's a quite old story.
I was reading halfway thru and one line struck a nerve with me: > But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. So not today, but the door is open for this after AI systems have gathered enough "training data"? Then I re-read the previous paragraph and realized it's specifically only criticizing > AI-driven domestic mass surveillance And neither denounces partially a…
Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying, nor people from any nation that came to help. That's as Anthropic as it gets if your nerve expands a little bit further than your HOA.