6 ms·

It’s absolutely necessary to have ChatGPT.com blocked from ITAR/EAR regulated organizations, such as aerospace, defense, etc. I’m really shocked this wasn’t alr

It’s absolutely necessary to have ChatGPT.com blocked from ITAR/EAR regulated organizations, such as aerospace, defense, etc. I’m really shocked this wasn’t already the case.

lysace 8mo ago
"The report says Gottumukkala requested a special exemption to access ChatGPT, which is blocked for other Department of Homeland Security staff."
- rbanffy 8mo ago
  That they got this is shocking in itself.
  - lysace 8mo ago
    Surely that must have been approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, his former boss back in SD.
    - rbanffy 8mo ago
      Every cause that led to this event is, in itself, quite shocking. I feel for my American friends, and hope they never again optimise their government for comedy value.
      - mcmcmc 8mo ago
        Unfortunately it’s not so shocking anymore. The Secretary of Defense texting imminent war plans to a journalist in a Signal group kinda jumped the shark.
        granoIacowboy 8mo ago
        Secretary of War
        dragonwriter 8mo ago
        In law, it is still the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense, no matter what cutesy nicknames the executive branch invents.
        somenameforme 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        somenameforme 8mo ago
        It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. At that point it was repackaged as the Department of Defense when we started framing invading countries half-way around the world as 'defense'. Prior to that rhetoric around war was far more honest. We tried to buy a sizable chunk of Texas from Mexico. They rejected our offer so we invaded and took it, because we wanted it. It's only in 1947 and later that somehow invading countries half-way around the world and shipping weapons to anybody with a buck began being framed as 'defense' or somehow saving the world from whatever - tyrant, terror, communism, burdens of oil, and so on. So in many ways I think it would be far more apt to say that 'Department of Defense' is the cutesy name. They're not defending anything - nukes and geography take care of that, more or less, on their own. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...
        dragonwriter 8mo ago
        > It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. No, what became the Department of Defense didn't exist from 1789 until 1947. The cabinet level Department of the Navy (current Department of the Navy) and the cabinet-level Department of War (later split into the current Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force) did, as separate, co-equal entities with no single civilian head over them beneath the President. The National Military Establishment under the cabinet-level Secretary of Defense was created as a unified military structure in 1947 over both the Department of the Navy (which remained a cabinet-level department) and what had been the Department of War (which was split into the cabinet-level Departments of the Army and the Air Force). And in 1949 the three service departments were fully subordinated within the NME instead of being cabinet level, and the NME was renamed the Department of Defense (pribably not entirely because it was really awkward having the combined military organization use an initialism that sounded like “enemy”, but...) More detailed version in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46825849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46825849
      - delaminator 8mo ago
        > Every cause that led to this event is, in itself, quite shocking. accidentally based > Madhu Gottumukkala was born in Andhra Pradesh, India
  - cybertronic 8mo ago
    meanwhile https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/13/elon-musk-grok-hegseth-military-pentagon https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/13/elon-musk...
tonetegeatinst 8mo ago
I agree....but ITAR and EAR can be super vauge especially in higher education.
CamperBob2 8mo ago
ITAR, yes, but there's no such thing as a person or organization that's not EAR-regulated. Everything exported from the US that's not covered by ITAR (State Department) is covered by EAR (Department of Commerce), even if only EAR99.
protocolture 8mo ago
Its something I have been talking about. Going to be needed for everyone.
TeMPOraL 8mo ago
Sure. That doesn't mean denying access to ChatGPT though - the way I see it, the entire value proposition of Microsoft offering OpenAI models through Azure is to enable access to ChatGPT under contractual terms that make it appropriate for use in government and enterprise organizations, including those dealing with sensitive technology work. I mean, they are all using O365 to run their day-to-day businesses anyway. I used to work in a large technology multinational - not "tech industry", but proper industrial technology; the kind of corp that does everything, from dishwashers to oil rigs. It took nearly a year from OpenAI releasing GPT-4 to us having some form of access to this model for general work (coding and otherwise) internally, and from what I understand[0], it's just how long it took for the company to evaluate risks and iron out appropriate contractual agreements with Microsoft wrt. using generative models hosted on Azure. But they did it, which proves to me it's entirely possible, even in places where people are more worried about accidentally falling afoul of technology exports control than insider training. -- [0] - Purely observational, I had no access to any insider/sensitive information regarding this process.

It’s absolutely necessary to have ChatGPT.com blocked from ITAR/EAR regulated organizations, such as aerospace, defense, etc. I’m really shocked this wasn’t already the case.

lysace 8mo ago

"The report says Gottumukkala requested a special exemption to access ChatGPT, which is blocked for other Department of Homeland Security staff."

rbanffy 8mo ago
That they got this is shocking in itself.
- lysace 8mo ago
  Surely that must have been approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, his former boss back in SD.
  - rbanffy 8mo ago
    Every cause that led to this event is, in itself, quite shocking. I feel for my American friends, and hope they never again optimise their government for comedy value.
    - mcmcmc 8mo ago
      Unfortunately it’s not so shocking anymore. The Secretary of Defense texting imminent war plans to a journalist in a Signal group kinda jumped the shark.
      - granoIacowboy 8mo ago
        Secretary of War
        dragonwriter 8mo ago
        In law, it is still the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense, no matter what cutesy nicknames the executive branch invents.
        somenameforme 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        somenameforme 8mo ago
        It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. At that point it was repackaged as the Department of Defense when we started framing invading countries half-way around the world as 'defense'. Prior to that rhetoric around war was far more honest. We tried to buy a sizable chunk of Texas from Mexico. They rejected our offer so we invaded and took it, because we wanted it. It's only in 1947 and later that somehow invading countries half-way around the world and shipping weapons to anybody with a buck began being framed as 'defense' or somehow saving the world from whatever - tyrant, terror, communism, burdens of oil, and so on. So in many ways I think it would be far more apt to say that 'Department of Defense' is the cutesy name. They're not defending anything - nukes and geography take care of that, more or less, on their own. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...
        dragonwriter 8mo ago
        > It was always called the Department of War [1] from 1789 until 1947. No, what became the Department of Defense didn't exist from 1789 until 1947. The cabinet level Department of the Navy (current Department of the Navy) and the cabinet-level Department of War (later split into the current Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force) did, as separate, co-equal entities with no single civilian head over them beneath the President. The National Military Establishment under the cabinet-level Secretary of Defense was created as a unified military structure in 1947 over both the Department of the Navy (which remained a cabinet-level department) and what had been the Department of War (which was split into the cabinet-level Departments of the Army and the Air Force). And in 1949 the three service departments were fully subordinated within the NME instead of being cabinet level, and the NME was renamed the Department of Defense (pribably not entirely because it was really awkward having the combined military organization use an initialism that sounded like “enemy”, but...) More detailed version in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46825849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46825849
    - delaminator 8mo ago
      > Every cause that led to this event is, in itself, quite shocking. accidentally based > Madhu Gottumukkala was born in Andhra Pradesh, India
- cybertronic 8mo ago
  meanwhile https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/13/elon-musk-grok-hegseth-military-pentagon https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/13/elon-musk...

tonetegeatinst 8mo ago

I agree....but ITAR and EAR can be super vauge especially in higher education.

CamperBob2 8mo ago

ITAR, yes, but there's no such thing as a person or organization that's not EAR-regulated. Everything exported from the US that's not covered by ITAR (State Department) is covered by EAR (Department of Commerce), even if only EAR99.

protocolture 8mo ago

Its something I have been talking about. Going to be needed for everyone.

TeMPOraL 8mo ago

Sure. That doesn't mean denying access to ChatGPT though - the way I see it, the entire value proposition of Microsoft offering OpenAI models through Azure is to enable access to ChatGPT under contractual terms that make it appropriate for use in government and enterprise organizations, including those dealing with sensitive technology work. I mean, they are all using O365 to run their day-to-day businesses anyway. I used to work in a large technology multinational - not "tech industry", but proper industrial technology; the kind of corp that does everything, from dishwashers to oil rigs. It took nearly a year from OpenAI releasing GPT-4 to us having some form of access to this model for general work (coding and otherwise) internally, and from what I understand[0], it's just how long it took for the company to evaluate risks and iron out appropriate contractual agreements with Microsoft wrt. using generative models hosted on Azure. But they did it, which proves to me it's entirely possible, even in places where people are more worried about accidentally falling afoul of technology exports control than insider training. -- [0] - Purely observational, I had no access to any insider/sensitive information regarding this process.