4 ms·

No, this very devious and insidious. What the executive branch believes is legal is the real agreement here. Trump can say anything is legal and that's that. Th

No, this very devious and insidious. What the executive branch believes is legal is the real agreement here. Trump can say anything is legal and that's that. There is no judicial overview, there are no lawyers defending the rights of those who are being harmed. Trump can tell the pentagon "everyone in minnesota is a potential insurrectionist, do mass surveillance on them under the patriot act and the insurrection act". Mass surveillance doesn't require a warrant, that's why they want it, that's why it's "mass". warrants mean judicial overview. Anthropic didn't disagree with surveillance where a court (even a FISA court!!) issued a warrant. Trump just doesn't want to go through even a FISA court. This is pure evil from Sam Altman. Is anyone listing these peoples names somewhere for posterity's sake? I'd hate to think this would all be forgotten. From Altman to Zuckerberg, if justice prevails they'll be on the receiving end of retribution.

piker 8mo ago
That view does seem to be consistent with Anthropic's. It's sad if true, since it implies a belief that the system cannot be just in modern contexts.
- notepad0x90 8mo ago
  mass surveillance is explicitly unlawful in the US. it is in the bill of rights. By definition it is injustice under the law. Even for terrorists in the US they have to go through a FISA court and get warrants. Consider this, the bill of rights stipulates that a soldier cannot be stationed on your property in times of peace, but in times of war it will be allowed. It makes exceptions for times of war. but even in times of war, 4th amendment's search and seizure protection don't have an exception. Even in times of insurrection and rebellion. To deliberately violate that for personal and political reasons, that in itself is treason. With that intent alone, even without action, it invalidates all legitimacy that government has. If a clause in a contract is broken, the contract is broken. The bill of rights is the contract between the people and their government that gives the government its powers to rule, in exchange for those rights. With the contract explicitly, deliberately and with provable malicious intent broken, the whole agreement is invalidated. I'll even say this, the US military itself is on the hook if they stand by and let this happen.
  - piker 8mo ago
    Right, which is probably the point made by the negotiators on behalf of the US Government. "We don't want Anthropic's standard, we want the Constitution."
    - notepad0x90 8mo ago
      Maybe I'm misunderstanding but are you taking the gov's side? Anthropic's standard was the constitutions. The executive branch has no authorization under US law to perform surveillance of any kind on its own. OpenAI will now be breaking US law, Anthropic simply decided to obey US law. The US government can update its laws and come back to Anthropic, or do what they just did
      - piker 8mo ago
        No, I'm not taking the government's side. I'm telling the government's side. That's probably true that the executive branch can't do those things, but it may be able to do so in the future. Thus, Anthropic's rule would then be inconsistent with the laws applying to the government. > The US government can update its laws and come back to Anthropic No, this I do take issue with. It's the people who update the U.S. government's laws.
        notepad0x90 8mo ago
        the people via their elected reps.. the government. The government is of the people and by the people. They're not different if democracy is truly working. > but it may be able to do so in the future. You don't obey laws in the future, you obey laws today. Companies have an obligation to follow the laws as written today. Not only that, as americans they and all americans have a patriotic and civic duty to resist attempts to bypass or undermine the constitution of their country. You literally can't be patriotic or loyal to your country without doing so, it is what constitutes the country. It's not like Anthropic can't update their guardrails and contracts once the laws of the land are updated. They simply resisted a criminal and treasonous abuse of power.
  - 8mo ago
s5300 8mo ago
[dead]
jstummbillig 8mo ago
> Trump can tell the pentagon "everyone in minnesota is a potential insurrectionist, do mass surveillance on them under the patriot act and the insurrection act". This is just incoherent. You can't have US companies fix an unhinged US government. If the government runs wild, there are some serious questions to be asked at a state level, about how that could happen, how to fix it quickly and how to prevent it in the future – but I should hope none of them concern themselves with the ideas of individual company owners, because if the government can de fact do what it wants regardless of legality the next thing that this government does could simply be pointing increasingly non-metaphorical guns at individual AI company functionaries.
- notepad0x90 8mo ago
  > This is just incoherent. You can't have US companies fix an unhinged US government. Which part? No one expects them to fix the government, matter of fact they should stay far away from it. However, they have a duty to obey the law and to be patriotic. All companies must resist attempts by the government to betray its people, because the government derives its authority from the people, therefore in its betrayal it has become an illegitimate enemy of the people instead of their legitimate government. > because if the government can de fact do what it wants regardless of legality the next thing that this government does could simply be pointing increasingly non-metaphorical guns at individual AI company functionaries. It feels like you and half the country never even at least watched movies surrounding nazi germany. The government can do whatever it wants, but whether it is companies, individuals working for it, or soldiers under orders, the government's authority does not excuse their participation. The government can't do anything at all on its own, it needs people to do it. If Obama wanted to get Anthropic to let their models aid al-qaeda with attacking America, should Anthropic say "oh well, since you're the government, go ahead?" This is the same thing. Ever heard of the phrase "enemies foreign or domestic" in the swearing of oaths? Company executives are beholden to the laws of the country they operate in. I mean, with Nazis at least their orders, and the orders of companies under their regime was lawful, even then it was not an excuse but they just changed the laws to make their orders lawful. Right now, we have laws and the government is breaking it, even "i followed lawful orders" isn't an excuse. Sam Altman is complicit in the violation of the American constitution and the betrayal of its people. If all else fails, I expect the government to just train their own models. In which case, I'd say the engineers working in that effort should have resisted.

piker 8mo ago

That view does seem to be consistent with Anthropic's. It's sad if true, since it implies a belief that the system cannot be just in modern contexts.

notepad0x90 8mo ago
mass surveillance is explicitly unlawful in the US. it is in the bill of rights. By definition it is injustice under the law. Even for terrorists in the US they have to go through a FISA court and get warrants. Consider this, the bill of rights stipulates that a soldier cannot be stationed on your property in times of peace, but in times of war it will be allowed. It makes exceptions for times of war. but even in times of war, 4th amendment's search and seizure protection don't have an exception. Even in times of insurrection and rebellion. To deliberately violate that for personal and political reasons, that in itself is treason. With that intent alone, even without action, it invalidates all legitimacy that government has. If a clause in a contract is broken, the contract is broken. The bill of rights is the contract between the people and their government that gives the government its powers to rule, in exchange for those rights. With the contract explicitly, deliberately and with provable malicious intent broken, the whole agreement is invalidated. I'll even say this, the US military itself is on the hook if they stand by and let this happen.
- piker 8mo ago
  Right, which is probably the point made by the negotiators on behalf of the US Government. "We don't want Anthropic's standard, we want the Constitution."
  - notepad0x90 8mo ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding but are you taking the gov's side? Anthropic's standard was the constitutions. The executive branch has no authorization under US law to perform surveillance of any kind on its own. OpenAI will now be breaking US law, Anthropic simply decided to obey US law. The US government can update its laws and come back to Anthropic, or do what they just did
    - piker 8mo ago
      No, I'm not taking the government's side. I'm telling the government's side. That's probably true that the executive branch can't do those things, but it may be able to do so in the future. Thus, Anthropic's rule would then be inconsistent with the laws applying to the government. > The US government can update its laws and come back to Anthropic No, this I do take issue with. It's the people who update the U.S. government's laws.
      - notepad0x90 8mo ago
        the people via their elected reps.. the government. The government is of the people and by the people. They're not different if democracy is truly working. > but it may be able to do so in the future. You don't obey laws in the future, you obey laws today. Companies have an obligation to follow the laws as written today. Not only that, as americans they and all americans have a patriotic and civic duty to resist attempts to bypass or undermine the constitution of their country. You literally can't be patriotic or loyal to your country without doing so, it is what constitutes the country. It's not like Anthropic can't update their guardrails and contracts once the laws of the land are updated. They simply resisted a criminal and treasonous abuse of power.
- 8mo ago

s5300 8mo ago

[dead]

jstummbillig 8mo ago

> Trump can tell the pentagon "everyone in minnesota is a potential insurrectionist, do mass surveillance on them under the patriot act and the insurrection act". This is just incoherent. You can't have US companies fix an unhinged US government. If the government runs wild, there are some serious questions to be asked at a state level, about how that could happen, how to fix it quickly and how to prevent it in the future – but I should hope none of them concern themselves with the ideas of individual company owners, because if the government can de fact do what it wants regardless of legality the next thing that this government does could simply be pointing increasingly non-metaphorical guns at individual AI company functionaries.

notepad0x90 8mo ago
> This is just incoherent. You can't have US companies fix an unhinged US government. Which part? No one expects them to fix the government, matter of fact they should stay far away from it. However, they have a duty to obey the law and to be patriotic. All companies must resist attempts by the government to betray its people, because the government derives its authority from the people, therefore in its betrayal it has become an illegitimate enemy of the people instead of their legitimate government. > because if the government can de fact do what it wants regardless of legality the next thing that this government does could simply be pointing increasingly non-metaphorical guns at individual AI company functionaries. It feels like you and half the country never even at least watched movies surrounding nazi germany. The government can do whatever it wants, but whether it is companies, individuals working for it, or soldiers under orders, the government's authority does not excuse their participation. The government can't do anything at all on its own, it needs people to do it. If Obama wanted to get Anthropic to let their models aid al-qaeda with attacking America, should Anthropic say "oh well, since you're the government, go ahead?" This is the same thing. Ever heard of the phrase "enemies foreign or domestic" in the swearing of oaths? Company executives are beholden to the laws of the country they operate in. I mean, with Nazis at least their orders, and the orders of companies under their regime was lawful, even then it was not an excuse but they just changed the laws to make their orders lawful. Right now, we have laws and the government is breaking it, even "i followed lawful orders" isn't an excuse. Sam Altman is complicit in the violation of the American constitution and the betrayal of its people. If all else fails, I expect the government to just train their own models. In which case, I'd say the engineers working in that effort should have resisted.