12 ms·

OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network

• nateburke 7mo ago
  Plain and simple this is revenge for the Anthropic super bowl ads, which were epic burns against openAI's primary future revenue stream.
  • madeofpalk 7mo ago
    This seems like an exceptionally shallow reading of everything and everyone involved. You think OpenAI decided to build MurderBot because someone made fun on them selling ads?
    • nateburke 7mo ago
      I think it's plausible, given the effort he seemed to put into his initial response to the ads: https://x.com/sama/status/2019139174339928189 https://x.com/sama/status/2019139174339928189
      • nateburke 7mo ago
        from the tweet above: "Maybe even more importantly: Anthropic wants to control what people do with AI—they block companies they don't like from using their coding product (including us), they want to write the rules themselves for what people can and can't use AI for, and now they also want to tell other companies what their business models can be."
• verdverm 7mo ago
  If the "safety stack" (guardrails) bit is true, it's the exact opposite of their beef with Anthropic... which is not surprising given who's running the US right now. I always assumed those folks need a way to look strong with their base for a media moment over equitable application of the policies or law.
• push0ret 7mo ago
  So they agreed to the same red lines that had earlier led to the fallout with Anthropic? Kind of strange.
  • fintechie 7mo ago
    Well you know how it goes... you need to read between the lines. I can agree with you on your "principles", but not enforce them myself.
  • yoyohello13 7mo ago
    Sam saw Anthropic was getting too competitive. So he called his buddies in the gov to knock them down a peg.
    • Analemma_ 7mo ago
      For sure, he's been pissed that OpenAI no longer has the Mandate of Heaven and Claude is all anyone has been talking about since December. (And it's not just an ego thing: because OAI isn't profitable yet, they need the hype to keep going to raise money on favorable terms, so loss of buzz is an existential threat). I absolutely believe that he started making calls to try and get buddies in the White House to take Anthropic down.
    • coliveira 7mo ago
      That's very possible! In the last few days Anthropic was getting a lot of attention, and OpenAI was looking weaker in comparison. It seems like a politically coordinated job to remove competition.
  • lathgan 7mo ago
    Follow the money. There is a UAE sheik who bought 49% of Trump's World Liberty and is involved in OpenAI's Project Stargate: https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/35909013656801 https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/35909013656801 I'm sure more will drop in the coming months.
  • harmonic18374 7mo ago
    I don't trust Sam to be telling the truth. It would be to his benefit to lie about this and make Anthropic look bad, so he of course would, even if it's not actually the case.
• eoskx 7mo ago
  "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome. AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only. We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements. We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place."
  • moogly 7mo ago
    > We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. Serve Palestinians volleys of rockets, that is.
• shablulman 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• jordanscales 7mo ago
  This is awkward? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188473
  • BoiledCabbage 7mo ago
    So they agreed to the exact same clauses that Anthropic put forward but with OpenAI instead? So it wasn't about those principles making them a supply chain risk? They're just trying to punish Anthropic for being the first ones to stand firm on those principles?
    • yoyohello13 7mo ago
      I’m sure a big donor just used the US gov as a bludgeon to destroy their competition
      • eclipticplane 7mo ago
        Is the big donor among us?
        • yoyohello13 7mo ago
          Now that OpenAI is going to be used for mass domestic surveillance you can assume Sam Altman is always in the room.
        • CamperBob2 7mo ago
          As I understand it, Sam's cofounder at OpenAI donated $25 million to the Trump 2024 campaign. As Trump himself likes to say, "Promises made, promises kept."
      • deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    • Jensson 7mo ago
      Anthropic would probably not renegotiate in a year about the principles, while Sam Altman is known to be morally flexible so OpenAI will almost surely allow the military to do what they want in the future. Sam Altman might even have said behind closed doors that these restrictions will be removed once the drama has died down.
• deaux 7mo ago
  All OpenAI employees during the board revolt that vouched for sama's return are personally responsible.
  • swat535 7mo ago
    OpenAI employees revolted for their millions worth of stock, not for principle. Anyone thinking they have any virtue is naive.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• rich_sasha 7mo ago
  Is the Pentagon signing a EULA confirming all their data will now be used, anonymised, for improving the service?
  • wmf 7mo ago
    Obviously not? You know enterprise customers don't have the same EULA as consumers, right?
• robertwt7 7mo ago
  How did they agree to the terms that were initially put forward by Anthropic but with OpenAI? Surely there’s a catch here. Or is it just Sam negotiation skill?
• jackyli02 7mo ago
  SA is a real weasel lol. Acted like he stood behind Anthropic's principles just to announce the deal with DoW a few hours later.
  • MGriisser 7mo ago
    Sam Altman not being consistently candid or truthful would be the shock of the century.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• Imnimo 7mo ago
  I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
  • tempaccount420 7mo ago
    Didn't the safety-conscious employees already leave when OpenAI fired Sam Altman and then re-hired him? In my mind the only people left are those who are there for the stocks.
    • AbstractH24 7mo ago
      In all seriousness, what’s the average tenure at OpenAI and how much of the company in March 2026 was even around for that?
      • lioeters 7mo ago
        It's comforting to know that some of the brightest minds of our generation are going to work at OpenAI, then quitting a few months later horrified, only to post a short mysterious tweet warning everyone of the dangers ahead. So much for alignment and serving humanity.
        • stingraycharles 7mo ago
          And they will continue to work for Google / Meta et al to use novel AI techniques to sell us more and better ads, only to quit a few years later to do more soul searching where everything went wrong /s
    • DANmode 7mo ago
      Review the signers https://notdivided.org https://notdivided.org
• superkuh 7mo ago
  I have just canceled all services and deleted my account with OpenAI. They can get money from the current US regime but I will not contribute to their violations of the constitution.
• iainctduncan 7mo ago
  Did anyone ever doubt sama would just follow the money? weasels gonna weasel
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• operator_nil 7mo ago
  So does this mean that OpenAI will give whatever the DoD asks for and they will pinky swear that it won’t be used for mass surveillance and autonomous killing machines?
  • insane_dreamer 7mo ago
    yes and we know we can trust openAI because they were founded on "open" and "safe" AI (up until they realized how much money there was to be made, at which point their only value changed to "make money")
• rvz 7mo ago
  Not a surprise here, that letter was a trap for OpenAI employees who filled it out with their names on it. [0] The ones that did might as well leave. But there was no open letter when the first military contract was signed. [1] Now there is one? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47176170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47176170 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-military-contract-warfighting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-mi...
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• cube00 7mo ago
  If the redlines are the same how'd this deal get struck? ChatGPT maker OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthropic when it comes to working with the Pentagon, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed to CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/openai-has-same-redlines-as-anthropic-in-any-deal-with-the-pentagon https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/openai-has-same-redl...
  • skybrian 7mo ago
    You're expecting logic from the Trump administration and that's not really how they do things. Maybe it was never about the redlines? Maybe they decided Anthropic was their enemy, and that was their excuse.
    • yoyohello13 7mo ago
      Anthropic was too public about being “good”. And if there is one thing the Trump admin cannot abide it’s morality.
  • westjerry35 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  • spongebobstoes 7mo ago
    deals are based on personal relationships, not abstract logic
    • _zoltan_ 7mo ago
      huh? the same deal was offered to anthropic who decided not to take it.
      • otterley 7mo ago
        This is not true. A different deal was offered to Anthropic, and they refused. Then the DoW turned around and went with OpenAI even though their terms weren’t materially different from the terms of their agreement with Anthropic.
• interestpiqued 7mo ago
  What a snake
• OhioMan2943 7mo ago
  Snakes- as predicted
• Jcampuzano2 7mo ago
  I would put bets on the issue probably being that it was pointed out that Anthropic's models were used to assist the raid in Venezuela, Anthropic then aggressively doubled down on their rules/principles and the DOD didn't like being called out on that so they lashed out, hard. If theres anything this admin doesn't like, its being postured against or called out by literally anyone, especially in public.
  • Monotoko 7mo ago
    I don't even think Anthropic balked at being used to assist, as long as a human has the final say.
• mythz 7mo ago
  Sam is just about the least trustworthy person in AI, I don't trust his words as face value and I consider these weasel words: > prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility *for the use of force*
  • propagandist 7mo ago
    That means autonomous killbots are a-ok. Human responsibility is not the same as human decision-making. The president or anybody at DoD can be "responsible", and we know there will be zero accountability. The courts defer to the executive, and Congress is all-too-happy for the executive to take the flak for their wars.
• elAhmo 7mo ago
  All that money and not a single ounce of integrity.
• davidw 7mo ago
  We need some kind of group like "tech people with morals". I'm done with these people and their corruption and garbage.
  • OhioMan2943 7mo ago
    Yeah some new banner to organise around- the hard part is easily communicating you're an ethical technologist and finding others.
    • schoen 7mo ago
      Also, it's probably tricky to find a Schelling point that a broad range of people can agree to. * no military use * no lethal use * no use in support of law enforcement * no use in support of immigration enforcement * no use in mass surveillance * no use in domestic mass surveillance (but mass surveillance of foreigners is OK) * no use in domestic surveillance * no use in surveillance * require independent audits * require court oversight * require company to monitor use * require company to monitor use and divulge it to employees * some other form of human rights monitoring or auditing * some other form of restriction on theaters/conflicts/targets * company will permit some of these uses (not purport to forbid them by license, contract, or ToS) but not customize software to facilitate them * company can unilaterally block inappropriate uses * company can publicly disclose uses it thinks are inappropriate * some other form of remedy * government literally has to explain why some uses are necessary or appropriate to reassure people developing capabilities, and they have some kind of ongoing bargaining power to push back It feels normal to me that a lot of people would want some of those things, but kind of unlikely that they would readily agree on exactly which ones. I even think there's a different intuition about the baseline because one version is "nobody works on weapons except for people who specifically make a decision to work for an arms company because they have decided that's OK according to their moral views" (working on weapons is an abnormal, deliberate decision) and another version is "every company might sell every technology as part of a weapons system or military application, and a few people then object because they've decided that's not OK according to their moral views" (refusing to work on weapons is an abnormal, deliberate decision). I imagine a fair number of people in computing fields effectively thought that the norm or default for their industry was the latter, because of the perception that there are "special" military contractors where people get security clearances and navigate military procurement processes, and most companies are not like that, so you were not working on any form of weapon unless you intentionally chose to do so. But, having just been to the Computer History Museum earlier this week, I also see that a lot of Silicon Valley companies have actually been making weapons systems for as long as there has been a Silicon Valley.
• SilverElfin 7mo ago
  So basically Greg Brockman of OpenAI, currently the largest MAGA PAC donor, used his bribe to make the government destroy his main competition? I’m absolutely cancelling ChatGPT and will tell everyone I know to cancel as well. I also absolutely do not trust sleezy Sam Altman when he claims he has the same exact redlines as Anthropic: > AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. If Hegseth and Trump attack Anthropic and sign a deal with OpenAI under the same restrictions, it means this is them corrupting free markets by picking which companies win. Maybe it’s at the behest of David Sacks, the corrupt AI czar who complained about lawfare throughout the Biden administration but now cheers on far worse lawfare. So it’s either a government looking to surveil citizens illegally or a government that is deeply corrupt and is using its power to enrich some people above others.
• corford 7mo ago
  If you're unhappy with this, an immediate way to signal it is with your wallet. In my case I've just uninstalled chatgpt from my phone, cancelled my subscription and will up my spend with anthropic.
  • cjonas 7mo ago
    Thanks for reminding me. Been meaning to cancel for months.
  • mrcwinn 7mo ago
    I canceled my subscription, wiped my history, closed my account, deleted the app. Using Claude Max.
  • ckemere 7mo ago
    Same
  • nearlyepic 7mo ago
    Do you honestly believe that cancelling a subscription makes a bit of difference to a company that is either committing accounting fraud on a monumental scale or shoveling venture capital money into a furnace? not to mention the whole collaborating with a fascist government thing. taking real action is your choice, but stop pretending this kind of thing matters one iota edit: to be clear, i'm not advocating for nihilism, but tricking yourself into thinking you made a difference to make yourself feel better isn't the play either
    • coliveira 7mo ago
      At least I'm not getting my hands dirty.
    • Analemma_ 7mo ago
      I think you have too much pessimism. It's not guaranteed to work, but as I mentioned in another thread, since around December, Claude (and Gemini to a lesser extent) has had all the buzz in tech circles, while Chat-GPT has seemed like the also-ran. And that matters: decision-makers in companies notice these things and momentum becomes self-reinforcing (you use Claude Code because everyone else uses Claude Code). If a large enough group of developers visibly defects from OpenAI because of this, it definitely could have consequences. It's not a sure thing, but it's far from hopeless. I was not a Chat-GPT user even before this, but I'm bumping my Claude Code subscription to the next tier up. Fuck OpenAI.
• Robdel12 7mo ago
  Raise your hand if you actually read it or if you read the title and replied? I see a lot of comments that sure seem like they didn’t read it. > Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. IF this is true, it SHOULD be verifiable. So, we wait? I mean, I am a dummy, but that language doesn’t seem too washy too me? Either it’s a bold face lie and OpenAI burns because of it or it’s true and the Trump admin is going after the “left” AI company. Or whatever. My point is, someone smarter than me/us is going to fact check Sam’s claim.
  • operator_nil 7mo ago
    Do you know who isn't a dummy? Sam. The crucial part of that statement is that the DoD will use OpenAI systems "lawfully and responsibly," which I don't doubt is written somewhere in their contract. However, those terms are so open-ended that it's impossible for OpenAI to enforce. Sam could have clarified in his tweet that they explicitly prohibited the use of their technology for mass surveillance and autonomous killings, but he deliberately chose not to and to simply say, "We told them not to do bad things." which smells like bullshit
    • Robdel12 7mo ago
      I guess I’m hanging on what > reflects them in law Means exactly. What law and what does it say? I’m also sure he quietly bent the knee, but I want to know what “law and policy” it’s being reflected in to know.
      • layer8 7mo ago
        No contract can require the government to “reflect” something in law, aside from the fact that the DoD is not a legislative body. So whatever Sam is talking about can only be lip service.
  • jrflowers 7mo ago
• dataflow 7mo ago
  This seems full of loopholes. > The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. (1) Well, did both sides sign the agreement and is it actually effective? Or is it still sitting on someone's desk until it can get stalled long enough? (2) What does "agreement" even mean? Is it a legally enforceable contract, or just some sort of MoU or pinkie promise? (3) If it's a legally enforceable contract, is it equally enforceable on all of their contracts, or just some? Do they not have existing contracts this would need to apply to? (4) What does "reflects them in law and policy" even mean? Since when does DoW make laws, and in what sense do their laws reflect whatever the agreement was? Are these laws he can point to so everyone else can see? Can he at least copy-paste the exact sentences the government agreed to?
• mrcwinn 7mo ago
  Hey dang I know I’m not allowed to say this due to community guidelines, but Sam Altman is a lying sack of shit.
• straydusk 7mo ago
  I know the reaction to this, if you're a rational observer, is "OpenAI have cut corners or made concessions that Anthropic did not, that's the only thing that makes sense." However, if you live in the US and pay a passing attention to our idiotic politics, you know this is right out of the Trump playbook. It goes like this: * Make a negotiation personal * Emotionally lash out and kill the negotiation * Complete a worse or similar deal, with a worse or similar party * Celebrate your worse deal as a better deal Importantly, you must waste enormous time and resources to secure nothing of substance. That's why I actually believe that OpenAI will meet the same bar Anthropic did, at least for now. Will they continue to, in the same way Anthropic would have? Seems unlikely, but we'll see.
  • ocdtrekkie 7mo ago
    Another good question: If OpenAI knew Anthropic wasn't a competitor... was the price higher? Will the federal government also pay more for a worse product?
    • straydusk 7mo ago
      You'd have to think so. They're really the only serious player left - I doubt Google would want to be involved, and xAI is a significant step down.
  • voganmother42 7mo ago
    If you support openai, you support this admin, simple as
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• cwyers 7mo ago
  There's a lot of people in this thread that assume that Sam Altman is the one who is being dishonest here, and I kind of understand, but the other two parties who could just as easily be lying are Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump, and of the three of them if you think sama is the _most_ likely to lie I feel like you have not been paying attention.
• mrcwinn 7mo ago
  So nice of him! I am sure he believes they should offer these terms to all competitors. HN: if you continue to subscribe to OpenAI, if you use it at your startup, you’re no better than the tech bros you often criticize. This is not surprising but beyond shady.
• dakolli 7mo ago
  They're pretending like they didn't enter into this agreement last January and are completely entrenched in intelligence programs already. They are trying to make it look like they are stepping up in a time of need (time of need for the DoD), in reality they sold their soul to intelligence and the military a year ago. I posted about this here after Sam made his tweet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189756 Source: https://defensescoop.com/2025/01/16/openais-gpt-4o-gets-green-light-for-top-secret-use-in-microsofts-azure-cloud/ https://defensescoop.com/2025/01/16/openais-gpt-4o-gets-gree...
• AmericanOP 7mo ago
  Instant uninstall.
• skeledrew 7mo ago
  > We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should A bold statement. It would appear they've definitively solved prompt injection and all the other ills that LLMs have been susceptible to. And forgot to tell the world about it. /s
• mkozlows 7mo ago
  So there are two possibilities here: 1. There's no substantive change. Hegseth/Trump just wanted to punish Anthropic for standing up to them, even if it didn't get them anything else today -- establishing a chilling effect for the future has some value for them in this case, after all. And OpenAI was willing to help them do that, despite earlier claiming that they stood behind Anthropic's decisions. 2. There is a substantive change. Despite Altman's words, they have a tacit understanding that OpenAI won't really enforce those terms, or that they'll allow them to be modified some time in the future when attention has moved on elsewhere. Either way, it makes Altman look slimy, and OpenAI has aligned with Trump against Anthropic in a place where Anthropic made a correct principled stand. It's been clear for a while that Anthropic has more ethics than OpenAI, but this is more naked than any previous example.
  • slopinthebag 7mo ago
    > OpenAI has aligned with Trump against Anthropic in a place where Anthropic made a correct principled stand. Just to be clear, you believe that the correct, principled stand is that it's OK to use their models for killing people and civilian surveillance? Both OAI and Anthropic have the same moral leg to stand on here, OAI is just not hypocritical about it.
    • mkozlows 7mo ago
      If you believe that any country should have a military and intelligence apparatus, the job of that apparatus is to kill people and surveil foreigners. I do think the US government should have a military and intelligence apparatus. Therefore, any company that works with it, from suppliers of clothing and food to suppliers of compute and AI, are supporting an organization with that mission. The US military _does not_ need to build autonomous weapon systems and _should not_ surveil US citizens broadly.
• aichen_dev 7mo ago
  [dead]
• calvinmorrison 7mo ago
  perhaps us mere mortals should petition our lawmakers to ban mass surveillance.
• lefrenchy 7mo ago
  This will backfire on Sam someday, he’s just a pawn in the agenda of the Trump admin.
  • abraxas 7mo ago
    I hope so but I am less optimistic. The oligarchy in Russia who remained loyal to the Putin regime have done just fine for decades as long as they did not attempt to overthrow the dictator. The regime in Washington is basically constructing the same type of kleptocracy and very little evidence is there that anyone who matters will get in their way. So far as I can tell the country is already a form of authoritarian regime where the loyalty to the supreme ruler is the main parameter of conducting business there.
• drivebyhooting 7mo ago
  In my experience ChatGPT is the most sanctimonious of the leading models. When I need advice for my clandestine operations I always reach for Grok.
• AmericanOP 7mo ago
  Department of War just killed OpenAI's brand
• d--b 7mo ago
  At this stage, everything OpenAi does is to try to keep investors investing. They’re willing to let their brand go to trash for this government contract. Pretty much every American is standing with Anthropic on this. No one left or right wants mass surveillance and terminators. In fact, no one in the world wants this, except the US military. But Altman seems so desperate to keep the cash coming he’s ready to do anything.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• AbstractH24 7mo ago
  It’s amazing how quickly the players keep shifting here. Yesterday and the day before sentiment seemed to be focused on “Anthropic selling out”, then that shifted to “Anthropic holds true to its principles in a David vs Goliath” and “the industry will rally around one another for the greater good.” But suddenly we’re seeing a new narrative of “Evil OpenAI swoops in to make a deal with the devil.” Reminds of that weekend where Sam Altman lost control of OpenAI.
  • karmasimida 7mo ago
    Sam is a player and honestly the more interesting one in the whole thing. Mad respect to Sam, now I believe OpenAI have better chance to win in the race
    • Sl1mb0 7mo ago
      > Mad respect to Sam And people wonder how we got here.
    • AbstractH24 7mo ago
      He’s certainly solidified his place in the history of this era. But I suspect the public sentiment will eventually turn against him. When society sets its pitchforks on big tech he’ll be the poster boy. A 21st century John D. Rockefeller. Him, Musk, Bezos, and Zuck.
      • webdevver 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        • AbstractH24 7mo ago
          Invalidating most of society is such an interesting way to live a life on this planet. Seems somewhere between very isolating and very narcissistic.
    • insane_dreamer 7mo ago
• slopinthebag 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • WD-42 7mo ago
    Cancelling seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a human to do.
• slibhb 7mo ago
  I'm unsure how to feel about this whole dust-up. It doesn't seem like much has changed in substance. Maybe OpenAI outmaneuvered Anthropic behind the scenes. Possibly Anthropic was seen as not behaving deferentially enough towards the government. But this administration has proven comically corrupt, so it wouldn't surprise me if money was involved. Will be interested to see what journalists turn up.
• insane_dreamer 7mo ago
  I'm never using an OpenAI model or Codex ever again. Period. Idaf whether it scores better than Claude on benchmarks or not. This is a red line for me. It's clear OpenAI has zero values and will give Hesgeth whatever he wants in exchange for $$$. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/openai-reaches-ai-agreement-with-defense-dept-after-anthropic-clash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/openai-reaches...
• m4rtink 7mo ago
  So this is indeed how OpenAI survives (a little bit longer ?) - government bailout.
• quantumwannabe 7mo ago
  More details on the difference between the OpenAI and Anthropic contracts from one of the Under Secretaries of State: >The axios article doesn’t have much detail and this is DoW’s decision, not mine. But if the contract defines the guardrails with reference to legal constraints (e.g. mass surveillance in contravention of specific authorities) rather than based on the purely subjective conditions included in Anthropic’s TOS, then yes. This, btw, was a compromise offered to—and rejected by—Anthropic. https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027566426970530135 https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027566426970530135 > For the avoidance of doubt, the OpenAI - @DeptofWar contract flows from the touchstone of “all lawful use” that DoW has rightfully insisted upon & xAI agreed to. But as Sam explained, it references certain existing legal authorities and includes certain mutually agreed upon safety mechanisms. This, again, is a compromise that Anthropic was offered, and rejected. > Even if the substantive issues are the same there is a huge difference between (1) memorializing specific safety concerns by reference to particular legal and policy authorities, which are products of our constitutional and political system, and (2) insisting upon a set of prudential constraints subject to the interpretation of a private company and CEO. As we have been saying, the question is fundamental—who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems. > It is a great day for both America’s national security and AI leadership that two of our leading labs, OAI and xAI have reached the patriotic and correct answer here https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
  • SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
    You're quoting social media posts from a regime official who says he didn't participate in these negotiations and doesn't work for the relevant department. If his characterization of the agreement is correct, which I will not believe and you should not believe until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text, I suppose this would convince me that Hegseth does not literally plan to build a Terminator for democracy-ending purposes. There's a lot of inexcusable stuff here regardless, but perhaps merely boycotting OpenAI and the US military would be a sufficient response if this all checks out.
• transcriptase 7mo ago
  Sam must not be aware of what happened to any business or foreign nation/leader considered outwardly friendly to the first Trump administration when the democrats regained control in 2020.
  • yoyohello13 7mo ago
    You’re assuming democrats will ever be allowed to regain control.
  • _23sd 7mo ago
    If they earnestly believe in fast ASI timelines then political grudges have to be pretty low on OAI's list of worries about 2029.
• gaigalas 7mo ago
  We really need a plan for the scenario in which the US loses the trade war and decides to go homicidal AI on the whole world. Like, help them recover or something.
• hnthrowaway0315 7mo ago
  Ah, is it the time when Skynet starts to manifest itself...
• pbnjay 7mo ago
  I had kept my Plus subscription just because I was lazy, and it was inexpensive and convenient… but this turn definitely helped me get off the fence. I am exporting and deleting my data now, and the cancellation is already done.
  • pbnjay 7mo ago
    For anyone reading this later, I got my data export and deleted my account and got a pro-rated refund. So double whammy!
• skygazer 7mo ago
  Perhaps Trump's DOD objects specifically to Anthropic models themselves declining to do immoral and illegal things, and not something just stipulated in an ignorable contract. That would give room for Sam to throw some public CYA into a contract, while neutering model safety to their requirements.
• midnitewarrior 7mo ago
  Opportunism without principles at its finest.
• spprashant 7mo ago
  Just uninstalled the app and canceled subscription. OpenAI can't justify their insane valuation without an user base. Especially when there are capable models elsewhere.
• mmanfrin 7mo ago
  Absolute disgrace of a person and organization.
• impulser_ 7mo ago
  For the people that don't understand how they got a deal with the same redlines, it probably because OpenAI agreed to not question them. The safeguards are there, both parties agree now fuck off and let us use your model how we see fit. Anthropic probably made the mistake of questioning the Military's activities related to Claude after the Venezuela mission and wanted reassurance that the model wouldn't be used for the redlines, and the military didn't like this and told them we aren't using your models unless you agree to not question us and then the back and forth started. In the end, we will probably have both OpenAI and Anthropic providing AI to the military and that's a good thing. I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week.
  • Monotoko 7mo ago
    Anthropic vs OpenAI will probably be The Machine vs Samaritan (Person Of Interest for those who haven't seen it, watched it a decade ago and it's actually quite surprising how on point it ended up being)
  • xvector 7mo ago
    > I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week. Why? It is in the admin's interest to absolutely destroy Anthropic. Make them an example.
    • impulser_ 7mo ago
      Because once Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and all their contractors call to tell them they need Anthropic they will drop it.
• blueblisters 7mo ago
  My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAI But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this? For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provider? Other folks have claimed that Anthropic planned to burn the contentious redlines into Claude's constitution. Update: I have cancelled my subscriptions until OpenAI clarifies the situation. From an alignment perspective Anthropic's stand seems like the correct long-term approach. And at least some AI researchers appear to agree.
  • Analemma_ 7mo ago
    As people have repeatedly mentioned, if the War Department was unhappy with Anthropic's terms, they could have refused to sign the contract. But they didn't: they were fine with it for over a year. And if they changed their mind, they could've ended the contract and both sides could've walked away. Anthropic said that would've been fine. But that's not what happened either: they threatened Anthropic with both SCR designation and a DPA takeover if Anthropic didn't agree to unilateral renegotiation of terms that the War Department had already agreed were fine. It's absurd, and doubly so if OAI's deal includes the same or even similar redlines to what Anthropic had.
    • spongebobstoes 7mo ago
      it seems like oai deal does include the same red lines, plus some more, and the ability for oai to deploy safety systems to limit the use cases of the model via technical means this seems strictly better than what anthropic had. anthropic has ruined their relationship with the US govt, giving oai a good negotiating hand the oai folks are good at making deals, just look at all the complex funding arrangements they have
      • mpalmer 7mo ago
        "OAI wins by playing the government's game" is such a catastrophically bad take. > anthropic has ruined their relationship with the US govt, giving oai a good negotiating hand You want to try defending this ridiculous statement a bit more thoroughly? For a start, the designation by the government of a company as a supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. It may well be found to be arbitrary and capricious once the courts look at it. Business have rights too. For another, why do you think OAI was able to make what looks like the same deal? Anthropic was willing to say yes to anything lawful up to their red lines, and it was still a no. Why turn around and give OAI exactly the same thing, unless it's not really what it looks like? And Altman is always looking for the next buck. All these supposedly impressive complex funding arrangements have OAI on the hook to firms like Oracle in the hundreds of billions of dollars. No indication at all how this unprofitable business will become a trillion dollar juggernaut.
• jdiaz97 7mo ago
  cancelling my openai subscription, they're gonna miss my 20 USD
• ttrashh 7mo ago
  Cancel your subscription. It's the least you can do.
• deadbolt 7mo ago
  Choosing to go along with calling it the "Department of War" tells you all you need to know.
  • netsroht 7mo ago
    Remember when openai was too afraid to release the full GPT-2 model (this one had only 1.5B params) because humanity apparently wasn't ready for it. Look where we are just a couple of years later. I really admired them back in the day for openai gym and PPO etc.
• outside1234 7mo ago
  Screw OpenAI. Never opening that app again or using one of their models.
• camillomiller 7mo ago
  Sam Altman is this. Sam Altman needs to be stopped.
• romulussilvia 7mo ago
  I wonder if this will cause this to save open ai from the bubble! i am sure i am wrong;-)
• fiatpandas 7mo ago
  >human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems So there’s the difference, and an erasure of a red line. OpenAI is good with autonomous weapon systems. Requiring human responsibility isn’t saying much. Theres already military courts, rules of engagement, and international rules of war.
• LarsDu88 7mo ago
  China has evacuated its embassies in Iran. This is really about the imminent strike on Iran which is now super telegraphed. They are gonna use ChatGPT for target selection, and the likely outcome is that it will fuck things up and a bunch of civilians are going to die because of this decision. When this happens, Altman will go from being merely a drifter to having blood on his hands.
  • cogman10 7mo ago
    Iran, Cuba, and to classify people as "Antifa". A lot of innocent people are about to be harmed because the cogs of fascism are lubricated with blood.
    • LarsDu88 7mo ago
      The Iran situation is unique. If it is true that Epstein was part of a blackmailing operation run by Israeli intelligence, then the time to act is limited. It may only be a matter of time before the US-Israel special relationship begins to deteriorate, especially as the House of Representatives starts digging into what was going on. For hardline right wing Israeli government officials who would be privy to such information, the window of time to leverage to US to enact regime change on the Islamic Republic is closing. The survival of Israel over the long run really depends on not having a hardline Islamic regime in Iran developing nuclear weapons. Things like AI safety and US elections are secondary to such prerogatives. The question for voters in the US is whether it really is worth it to the average US citizen to shed blood and tax dollars for this stuff. I hope there can be a peaceful regime change in Iran and that there will be peaceful relations with Iran and Israel in the future. But damn I wish things could go back to normal with our US political system once this is all settled.
  • coffeebeqn 7mo ago
    Why would they use chatgpt for target selection?
    • LarsDu88 7mo ago
      The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has over 200,000 personnel. There are thousands of putative SAM sites and MANPAD launch sites. The amount of data to crunch is significant. Alternatively, the DoW is simply incompetent and Trump or Hegseth wants to use AI to draft war plans.
• looksjjhg 7mo ago
  So it’s personal basically
• jstummbillig 7mo ago
  > Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. Under normal circumstances, that would seem really plausible. But given how far Trump continues to go just out of spite and to project power, it actually is the opposite. I am fully prepared to believe that they got absolutely nothing else out of it (to date).
  • matsemann 7mo ago
    OpenAI was the biggest donor ($25 millions) to Trumps campaign. This is them getting their back scratched in return.
• 0xfedbee 7mo ago
  Honestly not even surprised. What else could you expect from a zionist?
• saos 7mo ago
  Musk 100% right about this guy
• tintor 7mo ago
  Difference from Anthropic's deal is: - OpenAI is ok with use of their AI for autonomous weapons, as long as there is "human responsibility" - Anthropic is not ok with use of their AI for autonomous weapons
  • IAmGraydon 7mo ago
    I think you guys are giving far too much attention to the "autonomous weapons" angle and not enough to the "spying on Americans" angle. It makes no sense to use an LLM to power an autonomous weapon. It does make a lot of sense to use an LLM to monitor communications and public social media profiles to create a list of "domestic terrorists" that they can then target. I'm willing to bet this is what the administration wanted to use Anthropic for.
    • xiphias2 7mo ago
      Sure, and actually the open models are already good enough to do that, it's not like any company could stop any organization that can collect the data from doing this. They can just improve on it a lot.
• utopiah 7mo ago
  Oh yeah, from the company which raison d'etre was being open and being good. shocked pikachu face Come on by now we all know the only thing Altman (who else is still at OpenAI from the start?) wants it more money and more power, it doesn't really matter how.
• gabeh 7mo ago
  It's only $200 from me for the remainder of the year but you're not getting it anymore OpenAI. Voting with my wallet tonight. Really sad, I've followed OpenAI for years, way before ChatGPT. It's just too hard to true up my values with how they've behaved recently. This sucks. Goodnight everyone.
  • unfunco 7mo ago
    I cancelled and deleted my account and I got an email immediately with a pro-rata refund. You can get that money back.
  • ukblewis 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    • voganmother42 7mo ago
      Won’t anyone think of the poor billionaires?
  • tim333 7mo ago
    It's been kind of downhill since the 2023 Altman firing and rehiring.
  • jobs_throwaway 7mo ago
    Just cancelled my Plus plan as well. I will still wait to see how things play out before deciding if I'll delete my account altogether, but OpenAI's actions simply don't align with my values at the moment. Very disappointing.
  • user0648 7mo ago
    Same. Moving to Anthropic. At some point we can’t let the slide continue
• tayo42 7mo ago
  How do llms get used in either survalience or for autonomous weapons. Using written English seems so inefficient?
• levanten 7mo ago
  Funny that these are the same people that have been blasting the alarm on dangers of AI singularity. Now they cannot wait to put their tools in weapons.
• wannabe_loser 7mo ago
  I guess we aren't curing cancer with ai anymore
• riazrizvi 7mo ago
  Refreshing sanity.
• Uptrenda 7mo ago
  is there a single thing left that altman promised that he hasn't broken with this company...
• pu_pe 7mo ago
  So this week we've learned that even the government asseses Anthropic has the better model, and that OpenAI leadership has no concern for safety whatsoever.
• e40 7mo ago
  This is how OpenAI gets bailed out in an AI crash, too big to fail becomes too important to fail.
• apexalpha 7mo ago
  "We will not be divided!" They got divided 12 hours later, lol.
• arendtio 7mo ago
  So now we are waiting for Anthropic to explain to us what Sam agreed to and what they rejected. On the surface, it looks like both rejected 'domestic mass surveillance' and 'autonomous weapon systems', but there seem to be important differences in the fine print, since one company is being labeled a 'supply chain risk' while the other 'reached the patriotic and correct answer'. One explanation would be that the DoW changed its demands, but I doubt that. Instead, I believe OpenAI found a loophole that allows those cases under certain conditions.
• matsemann 7mo ago
  From an open non-profit to a war machine in such a short time is baffling.
• croes 7mo ago
  Is OpenAI and ChatGPT nie a national security threat for other countries?
• redml 7mo ago
  regardless of your opinion of ai in government, sam could not have picked a worse way for optics to swoop in and make a deal. it just looks incredibly bad.
• neuroelectron 7mo ago
  Sam Altman is a psychopath and his only talent is lying to people and convincing them of his lies.
• charcircuit 7mo ago
  I am glad OpenAI stood up to do what's right and give the American people the ability to choose how AI is used for themselves rather than dictating it from their high horse. Edit: It looks like the terms are similar in OpenAI's deal in what they prohibit so it isn't clear why they are any better. We should be the ones dictating what is and isn't prohibited. Not Sam. We will have to wait for more news on what is actually different.
  • raincole 7mo ago
    Yeah. And they are losing money from inference (HN told me so) so the US government is subsidizing our token usage!
    • charcircuit 7mo ago
      OpenAI is not losing money from inference. HN has told you the opposite repeatedly.
      • raincole 7mo ago
        I was being sarcastic.
        • shevy-java 7mo ago
          It is difficult to determine whether written text was meant to be sarcastic or not.
  • Kim_Bruning 7mo ago
    Any government is allowed to choose to do whatever it wants however it wishes; in a republic: given what is legally determined by the three branches. Obviously. They can contract with whomever they want, make any deal with whomever they want. This also means that they should adhere to a deal once it is signed. That's part of the law too. They shouldn't suddenly turn around and try to alter the deal, then retaliate against their deal partner when they say "that wasn't the deal". You can't just go and answer: "Pray we don't alter it further". The government of a nation sets the example for others, and should be scrupulous in their dealings.
• gggaaaiii 7mo ago
  [dead]
• khalic 7mo ago
  Their models are crappy anyway, the "super intelligence" BS is nowhere to be seen. Just let them die or become a US government asset.
• dgxyz 7mo ago
  Sam Altman being a complete bell end? Who'd have thought it. I hope everyone goes and works for Anthropic and OpenAI collapses. Markets going to be interesting on Monday. This plus a war. Urgh.
• bambax 7mo ago
  > In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety Right. Pete "FAFO" Hegseth is a model of intelligence, moderation, and respect for due process. Nothing to see here.
• lm28469 7mo ago
  > OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shares Anthropic’s concerns when it comes to working with the Pentagon The same day: Pssst psst Samy Samy, come here we have money and data psst > Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.
• ozgung 7mo ago
  Do I understand this correctly: An algorithm, an ML model trained to predict next tokens to write meaningful text, is going to KILL actual humans by itself. So killing people is legal, Killing people by a random process is legal, A randomized algorithm deciding on who to kill is legal, And some of you think you are legally protected because they used the word “domestic”?
  • techpression 7mo ago
    Domestic means nothing, it’s like the company Daniel Ek invested in saying they won’t sell weapons to ”Democracies”, in the context of warfare and control these words are meaningless. They will deploy this on a domestic scale and claim to use it to locate non-domestic threats. I can’t believe anyone is falling for this.
  • booleandilemma 7mo ago
    Is it possible the killing machine could hallucinate and kill some random, innocent person?
    • sumeno 7mo ago
      It's incredibly unlikely that it won't do exactly that, although we'll be very lucky if it's just that and not a random, innocent city
    • phtrivier 7mo ago
      Verhoeven fans would simply call it "a glitch".
    • boxedemp 7mo ago
      It's already happened in the Korean DMZ
  • mpalmer 7mo ago
    I don't think you do? Who said that any of it is legal? Keeping in mind that when the government does something, it usually takes more than 24h for there to be an official determination on whether they broke the law.
• ares623 7mo ago
  Is this setting the stage for a bailout? Was the whole thing between the three parties smoke and mirrors to justify a bailout down the line? It's conspiracy theory territory but, you know who we're dealing with here.
• mrweasel 7mo ago
  Didn't the department of war announce that it would be working with xAI just this past December?
• adangert 7mo ago
  Let me reiterate some points for people here: Income and revenue sources always, inevitably, and without fail, determine behavior.
  • aoeusnth1 7mo ago
    I think your theory might be missing an extremely relevant and timely counterexample?
• kseniamorph 7mo ago
  Is there anyone who really understands what’s different about the OpenAI agreement? Or maybe these are just Sam Altman’s public statements that don’t actually reflect the real terms of the deal. I honestly can’t figure it out.
• kledru 7mo ago
  Sorry, despite the public statements of some sort of solidarity with Anthropic by sama this looks like a plot to take over from losing position. Sadly it would be very difficult for Anthropic to relocate to another country with their IP, models, and infrastructure. (Guess I need to build everything I intended this year in a weekend.)
• imwideawake 7mo ago
  Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic should all have each other's backs when it comes to hard lines like this. Sam can say whatever he wants, but signing this deal on the same day Trump and Hegseth went scorched earth on Anthropic — for standing up for the very values OpenAI claims to hold — is sleazy. Screw Sam, and screw OpenAI. I've been a customer of theirs since the first month their API opened to developers. Today I cancelled my subscription and deleted my account. I'd already signed up for Claude Max and had been slow to cancel my OpenAI subscriptions. This finally made the decision easy.
• webdevver 7mo ago
  TOTAL ALTMAN VICTORY
• SpaceL10n 7mo ago
  Does deploying these models in "the classified network" also mean this technology is going to be used to help kill people?
• vander_elst 7mo ago
  Subscribers should be aware what they are supporting. I think that keeping an OpenAI account can be considered an active support of this decision, at least for private people who can easily change providers.
• throwaway20261 7mo ago
  It is quite shocking that almost all AI companies are saying "we are not ok with domestic surveillance" but they'll happily sign up to surveilling the rest of the world population. So by that measure the US govt can go get some Israeli software to surveill their domestic populace! Homo sapiens deserve to become extinct.
• petee 7mo ago
  This explains the "Free Codex" offer i just got in my email
• tibbydudeza 7mo ago
  While Dario is not my hero with the sometimes the outrageous things he says he has a firm moral compass and a backbone that aligns with mine and thus I will support his company and their products in my personal use and my work.
• owenthejumper 7mo ago
  Well in the end this is great news - this virtually guarantees Anthropic win in the court.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• pluc 7mo ago
  lol it didn't even take them a whole night.
• ukblewis 7mo ago
  Thank you Sam Altman for being a man with a good sense of ethics and empowering the US Military while it fights evil in Iran and empowering the US government and ignoring the idiotic haters
• resters 7mo ago
  There will be a scene in some future movie about Trump's authoritarian rise (we are still early in it) that shows Sam signing this agreement. Sam will be played by a character actor meant to symbolize silicon valley opportunism and greed. What sam and greg don't realize is that the many who succumb to trump's pressure tactics will all be lumped into the same category by history. Sam and Greg are handing an authoritarian regime that has broken so many laws in the past year a superweapon.
• _zoltan_ 7mo ago
  to all the naysayers: what did all these people doing AI research expect? that the military doesn't want to use their stuff? and then when it does, Pikachu face? I know I'll get down voted but come on, this is so very naive.
• brainzap 7mo ago
  the AI datacenter built for 180B are used for surveillance and control
• KronisLV 7mo ago
  In an imaginary world, this would be a precursor to Anthropic coming to EU in a greater capacity and teaming up with Mistral, eventually leading to similar innovation and progress that DeepSeek forced upon the West, benefitting everyone in the long run. They seem to have the morals for it and the respect for human rights and life given their recent announcement (after some backtracking), unlike OpenAI. Sadly, that's not the real world.
  • tao_oat 7mo ago
    I'd apply to work for Anthropic in a heartbeat if it was a European company.
• darkstarsys 7mo ago
  All of this, the news articles, the social media discussion, this very discussion, will be part of the training set for future AIs. What will they learn from this?
• DebtDeflation 7mo ago
  At this point it seems the entire AI Safety/Ethics debate was nothing more than a Marketing campaign to hype up the capabilities of the models - get people to think that if they're potentially dangerous that must mean they're so capable and they need to sign up for a subscription.
• FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
  Maybe the problem here is they are negotiating by using social media posts. Where is the team of Anthropic people, and the team of Gov people, that should be in a room somewhere doing this in private?
• gurumeditations 7mo ago
  The “Department of War” does not exist and no one should use their preferred pronouns.
• TeeWEE 7mo ago
  If you work at OpenAI, leave now while you can.
• lingrush4 7mo ago
  [dead]
• otterley 7mo ago
  The stories I’ve been reading say that the DoW’s agreement with OpenAI contain the very same limitations as the agreement with Anthropic did. In other words, they pressured Anthropic to eliminate those restrictions, Anthropic declined, then they made a huge fuss calling them “a radical left, woke company,” put them on the supply-chain risk list, then went with OpenAI even though OpenAI isn’t changing anything either. The whole story makes no sense to me. The DoW didn’t get what they wanted, and now Anthropic is tarred and feathered. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/trump-will-end-government-use-of-anthropics-ai-models-ff3550d9?st=TpEn2J&reflink=article_copyURL_share https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/trump-will-end-government-use-of... “OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said the company’s deal with the Defense Department includes those same prohibitions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, as well as technical safeguards to make sure the models behave as they should.”
• angoragoats 7mo ago
  It’s the Department of Defense, and let’s not have the main post be a link to the non-consensual-porn-generating and Nazi-supporting site. Could an admin change the main link to the Fortune article also linked here?
• _alternator_ 7mo ago
  So while Sam Altman claims that OAI received promises not to have fully automated killbot-GPT from Hegseth, so did Anthropic(!)—but it contained weasel legal language that allowed the USG to ignore the restrictions at will. (We all know how the current admin reads such language.) So until we see the contract I think it’s fair to assume that OAI and Anthropic got roughly the same deal, with Anthropic insisting on language that actually limits the government, while OAI licked the boot and is passing it off like filet mignon.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• vldszn 7mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47195085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47195085
• kneel 7mo ago
  Chatgpt has an export function for all of your chats Use it to save your data, shouldn't be hard to get it working elsewhere
• vorticalbox 7mo ago
  > prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance so foreign mass surveillance is all good?
• gammarator 7mo ago
  I would not be surprised if Sam A. helped engineer this whole situation… “Child’s play,” like replacing a reddit ceo.
  • gammarator 7mo ago
    Oh look! https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-whole-thing-was-scam https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-whole-thing-was-scam
• rambojohnson 7mo ago
  get fucked OpenAI. cancelled my subscription.
• weare138 7mo ago
  There's was an 80s movie about this...
• bodobolero 7mo ago
  I canceled my ChatGPT subscription and switched to Lumo Plus subscription https://lumo.proton.me/about https://lumo.proton.me/about I also considered https://mistral.ai/products/le-chat https://mistral.ai/products/le-chat Both are based in Europe but Proton Lumo has the better privacy promises. Would be interested in experiences of others with those alternatives for question/answering type research (not for coding for which there exist other, better alternatives like Gemini and Claude)
  • xvector 7mo ago
    If you want privacy the only option that reasonably delivers is Moxie's https://confer.to https://confer.to But tbh I just switched to Anthropic, they need all the support they can get. Claude is great for question/answer.
• jaybrendansmith 7mo ago
  What part of "These people are fascists, and need to be stopped" are people failing to understand?
  • boxedemp 7mo ago
    The part about money
• fabbbbb 7mo ago
  Anyone having success with exporting data from ChatGPT? Got the export email 11 hours ago but still no download link..
• coryodaniel 7mo ago
  Don’t just cancel, flood them with CCPA requests.
• taway1874 7mo ago
  Well ... bumped up my Claude subscription from Pro to Max and closed out my OpenAI accounts. It's a drop in the ocean but I'll sleep better knowing I did the right thing. Thanks ChatGPT! It was good knowing you.
• nahuel0x 7mo ago
  Remember that the US administration is supporting Israel on the ethnic-cleansing and genocide of Gaza, using Palantir technology and AI systems that generate kill lists. It's "IBM and the Holocaust" all over again.
• hwc 7mo ago
  Please note that the US Congress has not approved the existence of a "Department of War" this century. Calling it the Department of Defense is the only legally correct way to refer to it.
• billg_ms 7mo ago
  [dead]
• agentic_lawyer 7mo ago
  From the man who founded Worldcoin and built a grandiose vision of having the biometrics of every human in the developing world saved on his own corporate database: America - you're next.