29 ms·

(Disclosure, I'm a former OpenAI employee and current shareholder.) I have two qualms with this deal. First, Sam's tweet [0] reads as if this deal does not di

(Disclosure, I'm a former OpenAI employee and current shareholder.) I have two qualms with this deal. First, Sam's tweet [0] reads as if this deal does not disallow autonomous weapons, but rather requires "human responsibility" for them. I don't think this is much of an assurance at all - obviously at some level a human must be responsible, but this is vague enough that I worry the responsible human could be very far out of the loop. Second, Jeremy Lewin's tweet [1] indicates that the definitions of these guardrails are now maintained by DoW, not OpenAI. I'm currently unclear on those definitions and the process for changing them. But I worry that e.g. "mass surveillance" may be defined too narrowly for that limitation to be compatible with democratic values, or that DoW could unilaterally make it that narrow in the future. Evidently Anthropic insisted on defining these limits itself, and that was a sticking point. Of course, it's possible that OpenAI leadership thoughtfully considered both of these points and that there are reasonable explanations for each of them. That's not clear from anything I've seen so far, but things are moving quickly so that may change in the coming days. [0] https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 [1] https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230 https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230

spondyl 7mo ago
Jeremy Lewin's tweet referenced that "all lawful use" is the particular term that seems to be a particular sticking point. While I don't live in the US, I could imagine the US government arguing that third party doctrine[0] means that aggregation and bulk-analysis of say; phone record metadata is "lawful use" in that it isn't /technically/ unlawful, although it would be unethical. Another avenue might also be purchasing data from ad brokers for mass-analysis with LLMs which was written about in Byron Tau's Means of Control[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine [1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706321/means-of-control-by-byron-tau/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706321/means-of-con...
- az226 7mo ago
  The term lawful use is a joke to the current administration when they go after senators for sedition when reminding government employees to not carry out unlawful orders. It’s all so twisted.
- estearum 7mo ago
  To be clear, the sticking point is actually that the DoD signed a deal with Anthropic a few months ago that had an Acceptable Use Policy which, like all policies, is narrower than the absolute outer bounds of statutory limitations. DoD is now trying to strongarm Anthropic into changing the deal that they already signed!
syllogism 7mo ago
I don't understand how any sort of deal is defensible in the circumstances. Government: "Anthropic, let us do whatever we want" Anthropic: "We have some minimal conditions." Government: "OpenAI, if we blast Anthropic into the sun, what sort of deal can we get?" OpenAI: "Uh well I guess I should ask for those conditions" Government: blasts Anthropic into the sun "Sure whatever, those conditions are okay...for now." By taking the deal with the DoW, OpenAI accepts that they can be treated the same way the government just treated Anthropic. Does it really matter what they've agreed?
- xpe 7mo ago
  This is wise analysis. To summarize: appeasement of the Trump administration is a losing strategy. You won’t get what you want and you’ll get dragged down in the process.
  - duzer65657 7mo ago
    did we really need all this? Didn't the experiences with Ivy League Universities alreay prove it all out?
- WarmWash 7mo ago
  From a level headed outside perspective It looks like Anthropic likely wanted to be able to verify the terms on their own volition whereas OpenAI was fine with letting the government police themselves. From the DoD perspective they don't want a situation, like, a target is being tracked, and then the screen goes black because the Anthropic committee decided this is out of bounds.
  - GorbachevyChase 7mo ago
    I don’t know why more people don’t see this. It’s a matter of providing strong guarantees of reliability of the product. There is already mass surveillance. There is already life taking without proper oversight.
    - 7mo ago
xpe 7mo ago
I’d like to see smart anonymous ways for people to cryptographically prove their claims. Who wants to help find or build such an attestation system? I’m not accusing the above commenter of deception; I’m merely saying reasonable people are skeptical. There are classic game theory approaches to address cooperation failure modes. We have to use them. Apologies if this seems cryptic; I’m trying to be brief. It if doesn’t make sense just ask.
tedd4u 7mo ago
`yes | killbot -model openai`

spondyl 7mo ago

Jeremy Lewin's tweet referenced that "all lawful use" is the particular term that seems to be a particular sticking point. While I don't live in the US, I could imagine the US government arguing that third party doctrine[0] means that aggregation and bulk-analysis of say; phone record metadata is "lawful use" in that it isn't /technically/ unlawful, although it would be unethical. Another avenue might also be purchasing data from ad brokers for mass-analysis with LLMs which was written about in Byron Tau's Means of Control[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine [1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706321/means-of-control-by-byron-tau/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706321/means-of-con...

az226 7mo ago
The term lawful use is a joke to the current administration when they go after senators for sedition when reminding government employees to not carry out unlawful orders. It’s all so twisted.
estearum 7mo ago
To be clear, the sticking point is actually that the DoD signed a deal with Anthropic a few months ago that had an Acceptable Use Policy which, like all policies, is narrower than the absolute outer bounds of statutory limitations. DoD is now trying to strongarm Anthropic into changing the deal that they already signed!

syllogism 7mo ago

I don't understand how any sort of deal is defensible in the circumstances. Government: "Anthropic, let us do whatever we want" Anthropic: "We have some minimal conditions." Government: "OpenAI, if we blast Anthropic into the sun, what sort of deal can we get?" OpenAI: "Uh well I guess I should ask for those conditions" Government: blasts Anthropic into the sun "Sure whatever, those conditions are okay...for now." By taking the deal with the DoW, OpenAI accepts that they can be treated the same way the government just treated Anthropic. Does it really matter what they've agreed?

xpe 7mo ago
This is wise analysis. To summarize: appeasement of the Trump administration is a losing strategy. You won’t get what you want and you’ll get dragged down in the process.
- duzer65657 7mo ago
  did we really need all this? Didn't the experiences with Ivy League Universities alreay prove it all out?
WarmWash 7mo ago
From a level headed outside perspective It looks like Anthropic likely wanted to be able to verify the terms on their own volition whereas OpenAI was fine with letting the government police themselves. From the DoD perspective they don't want a situation, like, a target is being tracked, and then the screen goes black because the Anthropic committee decided this is out of bounds.
- GorbachevyChase 7mo ago
  I don’t know why more people don’t see this. It’s a matter of providing strong guarantees of reliability of the product. There is already mass surveillance. There is already life taking without proper oversight.
  - 7mo ago

xpe 7mo ago

I’d like to see smart anonymous ways for people to cryptographically prove their claims. Who wants to help find or build such an attestation system? I’m not accusing the above commenter of deception; I’m merely saying reasonable people are skeptical. There are classic game theory approaches to address cooperation failure modes. We have to use them. Apologies if this seems cryptic; I’m trying to be brief. It if doesn’t make sense just ask.

tedd4u 7mo ago

`yes | killbot -model openai`