9 ms·

Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk

Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value in any case. If it is loose terms or a wink agreement to not check in on enforcement you're never going to be told that. We can imagine other scenerios where the terms stated were not the real reason for the blacklisting, but it's a real struggle (at least for me) to find an explanation for this deal that doesn't paint OpenAI in a very ethically questionable light.

spongebobstoes 7mo ago
anthropic has nothing but a contract to enforce what is appropriate usage of their models. there are no safety rails, they disabled their standard safety systems openai can deploy safety systems of their own making from the military perspective this is preferable because they just use the tool -- if it works, it works, and if it doesn't, they'll use another one. with the anthropic model the military needs a legal opinion before they can use the tool, or they might misuse it by accident this is also preferable if you think the government is untrustworthy. an untrustworthy government may not obey the contract, but they will have a hard time subverting safety systems that openai builds or trains into the model
- nawgz 7mo ago
  Source?
- losvedir 7mo ago
  Huh, that's an interesting and new perspective. I'd love to know what you mean by safety systems, and what OpenAI can do that Anthropic can't.
- mpalmer 7mo ago
  This is entirely nonsense. - When has any AI company shipped "safeguards" that aren't trivially bypassed by mid bloggers? Just one example would be fine. - The conventional wisdom is that OAI's R&D (including safety) is significantly behind Anthropic's. - OpenAI is constantly starved for funding. They don't make money. They have every incentive to say yes to a deal that entrenches them into govt systems, regardless of the externalities
tedsanders 7mo ago
I agree it makes little sense, and I think if all players were rational it never would have played out this way. My understanding is that there are other reasons (i.e., beyond differing red lines) that made the OpenAI deal more palatable, but unfortunately the information shared with me has not been made public so I won't comment on specifics. I know that's unsatisfying, but I hope it serves as some very mild evidence that it's not all a big fat lie.
- DavidSJ 7mo ago
  OpenAI should not be agreeing to any contract with DOD under these circumstances of Anthropic being falsely labeled a supply chain risk.
- edoceo 7mo ago
  Friend, this reads like that situation where your paycheck prevents you from seeing clearly - I forget the exact quote. Sam doesn't play a straight game and neither does the administration - there are more than a few examples.
  - komali2 7mo ago
    Never try to convince someone of something they're paid to not believe.
  - davidmr 7mo ago
    Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”
- az226 7mo ago
  Your ballooned unvested equity package is preventing you from seeing the difference between “our offering/deal is better” and “designated supply chain risk and threatening all companies who do business with the government to stop using Anthropic or will be similarly dropped” (which is well past what the designation limits). It’s easier being honest.
chrisfosterelli 7mo ago
I agree with what you're saying, but given the egos involved in the current admin there's a practical interpretation: 1. Department of War broadly uses Anthropic for general purposes 2. Minority interests in the Department of War would like to apply it to mass surveillance and/or autonomous weapons 3. Anthropic disagrees and it escalates 4. Anthropic goes public criticizing the whole Department of War 5. Trump sees a political reason to make an example of Anthropic and bans them 6. The entirety of the Department of War now has no AI for anything 7. Department of War makes agreement with another organization If there was only a minority interest at the department of war to develop mass surveillance / autonomous weapons or it was seen as an unproven use case / unknown value compared to the more proven value from the rest of their organizational use of it, it would make sense that they'd be 1) in practice willing to agree to compromise on this, 2) now unable to do so with Anthropic in specific because of the political kerfuffle. I imagine they'd rather not compromise, but if none of the AI companies are going to offer them it then there's only so much you can do as a short term strategy.
- juggle-anyhow 7mo ago
  Well at least we know now that the department of war is less capable than before. All because the big man shit his pants while Anthropic was in view.
- pbhjpbhj 7mo ago
  >5. Trump sees a political reason Like, they haven't paid me a bribe? That seems to be the only "politics" at play in Trumps head.
  - petre 7mo ago
    Nah, they just respectfully said no to their face, which prompted him to make a big threat display and post another message with caps and exclamation signs on social media.
  - trickstra 7mo ago
    It's all a test of loyalty, crucial for fascist regimes.
skepticATX 7mo ago
One explanation is that this is effectively a quid pro quo, given Brockman’s enormous financial support of the current president.
- ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
  Yep, theoretically it could just be oligarchic corruption and not institutional insanity at the highest levels of the government. What a reassuring relief it would be to believe that.
monooso 7mo ago
I agree with your assessment, but given the past behaviour of this administration I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the real reason is "petulance".
- khazhoux 7mo ago
  It’s obvious retaliation, and will be struck down by the courts.
  - LadyCailin 7mo ago
    Maybe, within the next 5 years.
manmal 7mo ago
Are you saying that everything so far in this administration has been 100% rational?
Rebuff5007 7mo ago
> it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened I think what you are missing is their annual comp with two commas in it.
- the_real_cher 7mo ago
  This, for that check theyll be building the autonomous robots themselves, saying "theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!"
  - cheonn638 7mo ago
    > theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!" You underestimate how many top AI scientists are perfectly okay with building autonomous weapons systems and are not ashamed of it. Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year. Now note that many L7+ at OpenAI are making $10 million+ per year.
    - tibbydudeza 7mo ago
      True that - everybody has a price.
      - xphos 7mo ago
        I mean this is not actually true and the statement justifies and vindicates those that do sell out by saying of course anyone would. There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things. A better way is to say you can always find a cheap sellout at least than the morally dammed cannot claim equality of belief
        raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
        You mean like all of the religious leaders who are actively supporting a defending a three time married adulterer? You’ll have to excuse my skepticism of the morality of “the moral majority”.
az226 7mo ago
And Sam is a habitual liar.
- jdiaz97 7mo ago
  He literally just got community noted for lying. So much for a non-profit CEO or whatever it is now.
- kotaKat 7mo ago
  And an abuser, but they keep covering that one up.
  - abustamam 7mo ago
    Are you talking about his sister? https://x.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770 https://x.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770 If so, I believe the lawsuit is still going on. I'm personally withholding judgment on him on this matter since I don't know the details. But it's easy to criticize and judge him on other stuff he's said in public.
cowsandmilk 7mo ago
> one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that Never discount the possibility of Hegseth being petty and doing the OpenAI deal with the same terms to imply to the world that Anthropic is being unreasonable because another company signed a deal with him.
- addandsubtract 7mo ago
  Or corruption, in which Trump/Hegseth are getting a kickback from OpenAI, but giving the money to Anthropic would be "worthless" to them.
willis936 7mo ago
>or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic This one is very easy. Trump has a well established pattern of making a loud statement to make it appear he didn't lose, even when he did.
readitalready 7mo ago
As an OpenAI employee, quitting wouldn't be a problem, as you have a much higher chance of being successful after quitting than anyone else. You could go to any VC and they would fund you.
- onion2k 7mo ago
  This isn't even close to true. VCs aren't silly, and it's not the 2010-2015 days of free money any more. Having a big company on your resume is not enough to land your seed round. You need a product, traction, and real money revenue in most cases.
  - Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
    I mean, even if that's the case Facebook was hiring 100 Million$ just a few months ago though even poaching from OpenAI and I do think that these employees will always have an easier time getting a decent job offer from major companies in general as well. They may or may not be making the same money but, I do think that their morals have to be priced in as well.
    - onion2k 7mo ago
      Getting a job offer is very different to raising a funding round.
      - Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
        Yes I agree, I don't know the current VC market so I am not gonna comment about that but my point was that the OpenAI employees would still be considerably well off even if they switch jobs. My point was I don't think that Money (whether from VC or taking Jobs from other massive AI employers) should be as important issue to them atleast imo.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    Oh no, principles with a price... what will they think of next. Obviously principles only matter when there is a price attached.
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> while another agrees the the same terms that led to that One of them needs to be investigated for corruption in the next few years. I’d have to assume anyone senior at OpenAI is negotiating indemnities for this.
DennisP 7mo ago
And unless GP has a security clearance, they can't know for sure what OpenAI is allowing on classified networks.
ukblewis 7mo ago
[flagged]
- johnbellone 7mo ago
  You believe who ever said that?
MattyRad 7mo ago
Yeah, agreed. I probably wasn't going to delete my OpenAI account (ala the link that is also being upvoted on HN), it just seemed like a hassle vs ceasing to use OpenAI. But when the staff at OpenAI employ mental gymnastics, selective hearing, willful ignorance, or plain ignorance to justify compliance with manmade horrors, I think it's probably important to vote with our feet.
RandomTisk 7mo ago
There's a critical mass of Trump Derangement Syndrome in SV, as this site exemplifies almost daily. The amount of vitriol and hatred spewed here is not healthy, nor are those who spew it. It kills rational debate, nuance and leads to foolish choices like someone cutting off their nose to spite their face as the old saying goes.
- pnut 7mo ago
  The president of the United States sets the tone that hated without reason or explanation is the way the system works now. Belligerence and power are the currency. Speaking to people's better angels as if it has a chance of influencing Trumps behaviour is a fool's errand. It's not derangement. His word is worthless.
topheroo 7mo ago
> Cope and cognitive dissonance
gzread 7mo ago
Surely the reason was the large sum of money?
nektro 7mo ago
> Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. to be clear i think your assessment of this situation is likely, but it could also be the case that pete and co likes sam more than they do dario.
- baconner 7mo ago
  I was trying to make no particular call on the actual reason aside from pointing at how obviously not the real story and false the statements made so far are. What a knot you have to tie yourself into to seek out an explanation where OpenAI has not made an ethical compromise to stay in the game here. I can stretch and think of some ways but they are far from the simplest explanation. Lots of responses below give the likely real reasons most of which are probably true in part, but my opinion is it's the primary reason all who is in and who is out decisions are made by the trump administration - fealty. Skills, value brought, qualifications, etc. none of that matter above passing frequent loyalty tests, appealing to ego, bribes (sorry, i mean donations). Imagine thinking "hey, we'll work towards fully autonomous killbots because our adversaries will get them too but the tech isn't strong enough to allow them loose yet" or "yes you can use our ai for your panopticon surveillance, but just not on our own citizens because that is illegal" are lefty woke stances but here we are. Dario failed the loyalty test, as anyone rational would.

spongebobstoes 7mo ago

anthropic has nothing but a contract to enforce what is appropriate usage of their models. there are no safety rails, they disabled their standard safety systems openai can deploy safety systems of their own making from the military perspective this is preferable because they just use the tool -- if it works, it works, and if it doesn't, they'll use another one. with the anthropic model the military needs a legal opinion before they can use the tool, or they might misuse it by accident this is also preferable if you think the government is untrustworthy. an untrustworthy government may not obey the contract, but they will have a hard time subverting safety systems that openai builds or trains into the model

nawgz 7mo ago
Source?
losvedir 7mo ago
Huh, that's an interesting and new perspective. I'd love to know what you mean by safety systems, and what OpenAI can do that Anthropic can't.
mpalmer 7mo ago
This is entirely nonsense. - When has any AI company shipped "safeguards" that aren't trivially bypassed by mid bloggers? Just one example would be fine. - The conventional wisdom is that OAI's R&D (including safety) is significantly behind Anthropic's. - OpenAI is constantly starved for funding. They don't make money. They have every incentive to say yes to a deal that entrenches them into govt systems, regardless of the externalities

tedsanders 7mo ago

I agree it makes little sense, and I think if all players were rational it never would have played out this way. My understanding is that there are other reasons (i.e., beyond differing red lines) that made the OpenAI deal more palatable, but unfortunately the information shared with me has not been made public so I won't comment on specifics. I know that's unsatisfying, but I hope it serves as some very mild evidence that it's not all a big fat lie.

DavidSJ 7mo ago
OpenAI should not be agreeing to any contract with DOD under these circumstances of Anthropic being falsely labeled a supply chain risk.
edoceo 7mo ago
Friend, this reads like that situation where your paycheck prevents you from seeing clearly - I forget the exact quote. Sam doesn't play a straight game and neither does the administration - there are more than a few examples.
- komali2 7mo ago
  Never try to convince someone of something they're paid to not believe.
- davidmr 7mo ago
  Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”
az226 7mo ago
Your ballooned unvested equity package is preventing you from seeing the difference between “our offering/deal is better” and “designated supply chain risk and threatening all companies who do business with the government to stop using Anthropic or will be similarly dropped” (which is well past what the designation limits). It’s easier being honest.

chrisfosterelli 7mo ago

I agree with what you're saying, but given the egos involved in the current admin there's a practical interpretation: 1. Department of War broadly uses Anthropic for general purposes 2. Minority interests in the Department of War would like to apply it to mass surveillance and/or autonomous weapons 3. Anthropic disagrees and it escalates 4. Anthropic goes public criticizing the whole Department of War 5. Trump sees a political reason to make an example of Anthropic and bans them 6. The entirety of the Department of War now has no AI for anything 7. Department of War makes agreement with another organization If there was only a minority interest at the department of war to develop mass surveillance / autonomous weapons or it was seen as an unproven use case / unknown value compared to the more proven value from the rest of their organizational use of it, it would make sense that they'd be 1) in practice willing to agree to compromise on this, 2) now unable to do so with Anthropic in specific because of the political kerfuffle. I imagine they'd rather not compromise, but if none of the AI companies are going to offer them it then there's only so much you can do as a short term strategy.

juggle-anyhow 7mo ago
Well at least we know now that the department of war is less capable than before. All because the big man shit his pants while Anthropic was in view.
pbhjpbhj 7mo ago
>5. Trump sees a political reason Like, they haven't paid me a bribe? That seems to be the only "politics" at play in Trumps head.
- petre 7mo ago
  Nah, they just respectfully said no to their face, which prompted him to make a big threat display and post another message with caps and exclamation signs on social media.
- trickstra 7mo ago
  It's all a test of loyalty, crucial for fascist regimes.

skepticATX 7mo ago

One explanation is that this is effectively a quid pro quo, given Brockman’s enormous financial support of the current president.

ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
Yep, theoretically it could just be oligarchic corruption and not institutional insanity at the highest levels of the government. What a reassuring relief it would be to believe that.

monooso 7mo ago

I agree with your assessment, but given the past behaviour of this administration I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the real reason is "petulance".

khazhoux 7mo ago
It’s obvious retaliation, and will be struck down by the courts.
- LadyCailin 7mo ago
  Maybe, within the next 5 years.

manmal 7mo ago

Are you saying that everything so far in this administration has been 100% rational?

Rebuff5007 7mo ago

> it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened I think what you are missing is their annual comp with two commas in it.

the_real_cher 7mo ago
This, for that check theyll be building the autonomous robots themselves, saying "theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!"
- cheonn638 7mo ago
  > theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!" You underestimate how many top AI scientists are perfectly okay with building autonomous weapons systems and are not ashamed of it. Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year. Now note that many L7+ at OpenAI are making $10 million+ per year.
  - tibbydudeza 7mo ago
    True that - everybody has a price.
    - xphos 7mo ago
      I mean this is not actually true and the statement justifies and vindicates those that do sell out by saying of course anyone would. There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things. A better way is to say you can always find a cheap sellout at least than the morally dammed cannot claim equality of belief
      - raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
        You mean like all of the religious leaders who are actively supporting a defending a three time married adulterer? You’ll have to excuse my skepticism of the morality of “the moral majority”.

az226 7mo ago

And Sam is a habitual liar.

jdiaz97 7mo ago
He literally just got community noted for lying. So much for a non-profit CEO or whatever it is now.
kotaKat 7mo ago
And an abuser, but they keep covering that one up.
- abustamam 7mo ago
  Are you talking about his sister? https://x.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770 https://x.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770 If so, I believe the lawsuit is still going on. I'm personally withholding judgment on him on this matter since I don't know the details. But it's easy to criticize and judge him on other stuff he's said in public.

cowsandmilk 7mo ago

> one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that Never discount the possibility of Hegseth being petty and doing the OpenAI deal with the same terms to imply to the world that Anthropic is being unreasonable because another company signed a deal with him.

addandsubtract 7mo ago
Or corruption, in which Trump/Hegseth are getting a kickback from OpenAI, but giving the money to Anthropic would be "worthless" to them.

willis936 7mo ago

>or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic This one is very easy. Trump has a well established pattern of making a loud statement to make it appear he didn't lose, even when he did.

readitalready 7mo ago

As an OpenAI employee, quitting wouldn't be a problem, as you have a much higher chance of being successful after quitting than anyone else. You could go to any VC and they would fund you.

onion2k 7mo ago
This isn't even close to true. VCs aren't silly, and it's not the 2010-2015 days of free money any more. Having a big company on your resume is not enough to land your seed round. You need a product, traction, and real money revenue in most cases.
- Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
  I mean, even if that's the case Facebook was hiring 100 Million$ just a few months ago though even poaching from OpenAI and I do think that these employees will always have an easier time getting a decent job offer from major companies in general as well. They may or may not be making the same money but, I do think that their morals have to be priced in as well.
  - onion2k 7mo ago
    Getting a job offer is very different to raising a funding round.
    - Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
      Yes I agree, I don't know the current VC market so I am not gonna comment about that but my point was that the OpenAI employees would still be considerably well off even if they switch jobs. My point was I don't think that Money (whether from VC or taking Jobs from other massive AI employers) should be as important issue to them atleast imo.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  Oh no, principles with a price... what will they think of next. Obviously principles only matter when there is a price attached.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> while another agrees the the same terms that led to that One of them needs to be investigated for corruption in the next few years. I’d have to assume anyone senior at OpenAI is negotiating indemnities for this.

DennisP 7mo ago

And unless GP has a security clearance, they can't know for sure what OpenAI is allowing on classified networks.

ukblewis 7mo ago

[flagged]

johnbellone 7mo ago
You believe who ever said that?

MattyRad 7mo ago

Yeah, agreed. I probably wasn't going to delete my OpenAI account (ala the link that is also being upvoted on HN), it just seemed like a hassle vs ceasing to use OpenAI. But when the staff at OpenAI employ mental gymnastics, selective hearing, willful ignorance, or plain ignorance to justify compliance with manmade horrors, I think it's probably important to vote with our feet.

RandomTisk 7mo ago

There's a critical mass of Trump Derangement Syndrome in SV, as this site exemplifies almost daily. The amount of vitriol and hatred spewed here is not healthy, nor are those who spew it. It kills rational debate, nuance and leads to foolish choices like someone cutting off their nose to spite their face as the old saying goes.

pnut 7mo ago
The president of the United States sets the tone that hated without reason or explanation is the way the system works now. Belligerence and power are the currency. Speaking to people's better angels as if it has a chance of influencing Trumps behaviour is a fool's errand. It's not derangement. His word is worthless.

topheroo 7mo ago

> Cope and cognitive dissonance

gzread 7mo ago

Surely the reason was the large sum of money?

nektro 7mo ago

> Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. to be clear i think your assessment of this situation is likely, but it could also be the case that pete and co likes sam more than they do dario.

baconner 7mo ago
I was trying to make no particular call on the actual reason aside from pointing at how obviously not the real story and false the statements made so far are. What a knot you have to tie yourself into to seek out an explanation where OpenAI has not made an ethical compromise to stay in the game here. I can stretch and think of some ways but they are far from the simplest explanation. Lots of responses below give the likely real reasons most of which are probably true in part, but my opinion is it's the primary reason all who is in and who is out decisions are made by the trump administration - fealty. Skills, value brought, qualifications, etc. none of that matter above passing frequent loyalty tests, appealing to ego, bribes (sorry, i mean donations). Imagine thinking "hey, we'll work towards fully autonomous killbots because our adversaries will get them too but the tech isn't strong enough to allow them loose yet" or "yes you can use our ai for your panopticon surveillance, but just not on our own citizens because that is illegal" are lefty woke stances but here we are. Dario failed the loyalty test, as anyone rational would.