11 ms·

From that same X thread: Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines [1] OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthopic based on Altman's statement

• rootusrootus 8mo ago
  Exactly. What are we not being told? There is some missing element in the agreement, or the reasoning for the action against Anthropic is unrelated to the agreement.
  • moogly 8mo ago
    Turns out both companies ran the agreement through their legal departments (Claude and GPT), and one of them did a poor summary. I (think I) jest, but this is probably going to be a thing as more and more companies use LLMs for legal work.
  • yoyohello13 8mo ago
    The reasoning is one company is ‘left and woke’ the other gives money to Trump.
    • Analemma_ 8mo ago
      $25 million to be exact, one of Trump's largest individual donors. From a guy who "doesn't consider himself political", lol. [0] [0]: https://www.wired.com/story/openai-president-greg-brockman-political-donations-trump-humanity/ https://www.wired.com/story/openai-president-greg-brockman-p...
      • bmitc 8mo ago
        How can these people take themselves seriously? They're jokes.
        • toraway 8mo ago
          “I think there's no decision ever that everyone at OpenAI agrees with,” Brockman says when I ask what his team thinks about the donations. “Even when we were 10 people. We’ve always been a truth-seeking culture. We have this scientific mission of discovery, and reality kind of doesn't care for your own opinion. It cares about what's true.” After our interview, Brockman declined WIRED’s request for comment on the ICE shootings. Separately, he offered a more general statement clarifying his thoughts on the conversation with WIRED. "AI is a uniting technology, and can be so much bigger than what divides us today,” he said. His justifications are just an ever changing rambling mess of word salad that never even come close to addressing the MAGA Inc donation specifically, who is this even for? We're talking about a pretty straightforward donation to the incumbent President's Super PAC, not ASI solving world hunger or whatever.
  • ycombinary 8mo ago
    [dead]
  • generic92034 8mo ago
    Punish one, teach a hundred (companies).
  • micromacrofoot 8mo ago
    president of openai donated $25 mil to trump last month, openai uses oracle services (larry ellison), kushners have lots invested in openai, altman is pals with peter thiel
  • snickerbockers 8mo ago
    One nuance I've noticed: the statement from Anthropic specifically stated the use of their products for these purposes was not included in the contract with DoD but it stops short of saying it was prohibited by the contract. Maybe it's just a weak choice of words in anthropic's statement, but the way I read it I get the impression that anthropic is assuming they retain discretion over how their products are used for any purposes not outlined in the contract, while the DoD sees it more along the lines of a traditional sale in which the seller relinquishes all rights to the product by default, and has to enumerate any rights over the product they will retain in the contract.
  • fc417fc802 8mo ago
    The demand was that Anthropic permit any use that complied with the law. They refused. OpenAI claims to have the same red lines but in reality has agreed to permit anything that complies with the law. In other words OpenAI is intentionally attempting to mislead the public. (At least AFAICT.)
• nkassis 8mo ago
  OpenAI's post about their contract has the "redlines" described and they don't match what Anthropic wanted. (even if the text tries to imply they do) https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/ https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-o...
  • sowbug 8mo ago
    This is a good comment detailing the differences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47200771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47200771
• Analemma_ 8mo ago
  It's probably a combination of "Altman is simply lying" (as he has been repeatedly known to do) and "the redlines in OpenAI's contract are 'mass surveillance' and 'autonomous killbot' as defined by the government and not the vendor". Which, of course, effectively means they don't exist.
  • xeonmc 8mo ago
    > 'mass surveillance' and 'autonomous killbot' as defined by the government and not the vendor Ah, so they’ll be applying the good ol’ Three-Fifths Rule[0], a classic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
• Wowfunhappy 8mo ago
  > However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? The current administration is so incompetent that I find this perfectly believable. I imagine the government signed with OpenAI in order to spite Anthropic. The terms wouldn't actually matter that much if the purpose was petty revenge. I don't know if that's actually what happened here, I just find it plausible.
  • randall 8mo ago
    same. this is about losing a negotiation and saving face / exacting revenge.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • el_benhameen 8mo ago
    Absolutely incompetent, but I don’t think that’s the cause here. I think Anthropic’s sin was publicly challenging the administration. They’re huge on optics. You can get away with anything as long as you praise and bow in public.
    • microtonal 8mo ago
      That and possibly OpenAI cofounder Brockman donating 25 million to a Trump-aligned PAC: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/brockman-openai-top-trump-donor-21273419.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/brockman-openai-top-trum... Grifters gonna grift.
• 827a 8mo ago
  My understanding of the difference, influenced mostly by consuming too many anonymous tweets on the matter over the past day so could be entirely incorrect, is: Anthropic wanted control of a kill switch actively in the loop to stop usage that went against the terms of use (maybe this is a system prompt-level thing that stops it, maybe monitoring systems, humans with this authority, etc). OpenAI's position was more like "if you break the contract, the contract is over" without going so far as to say they'd immediately stop service (maybe there's an offboarding period, transition of service, etc).
• Nevermark 8mo ago
  > more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must undergo rigorous verification, validation, and testing > For intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives > The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law. I don't think their take is completely unreasonable, but it doesn't come close to Anthropic's stance. They are not putting their neck out to hold back any abuse - despite many of their employees requesting a joint stand with Anthropic. Their wording gives the DoD carte blanch to do anything it wants, as long as they adopt a rationale that they are obeying the law. That is already the status quo. And we know how that goes. In other words, no OpenAI restriction at all. That is not at all comparable to a requirement the DoD agree not to do certain things (with Anthropic's AI), regardless of legal "interpretation" fig leaves. Which makes Anthropic's position much "more stringent". And a rare and significant pushback against governmental AI abuse. (Altman has a reputation for being a Slippery Sam. We can each decide for ourselves if there is evidence of that here.)
  • qmarchi 8mo ago
    Easy way to summarize it: "You're not allowed to do these things, except for all of the laws that allow you to do these things."
    • dwallin 8mo ago
      It’s a non-clause that is written to sound like they are doing something to prevent these uses when they aren’t. “You are not allowed to do illegal things” is meaningless, since they already can’t legally do illegal things. Plus the administration itself gets to decide if it meets legal use.
• AlexVranas 8mo ago
  OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what they wanted, and OpenAI wasn't going to get anywhere without agreeing to that. They're about as transparent as Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia when he's telling everyone he's playing both sides.
  • gchamonlive 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    • enlightens 8mo ago
      Only Congress can change the name of a federal department, so the Department of Defense is still properly called that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347
      • hdgvhicv 8mo ago
        Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.
        • leereeves 8mo ago
          That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
• softwaredoug 8mo ago
  The difference is Anthropic wants contractual limitations on usage, explicitly spelling out cases of Mass Surveillance. OpenAI has more of an understanding that the technology will follow the law. There may not be explicit laws about the cases Anthropic wanted to limit. Or at least it’s open for judicial interpretation. The actual solution is Congress should stop being feckless and imbecilic about technology and create actual laws here.
  • scarmig 8mo ago
    Between Anthropic, the military, and Congress, I have the least faith in Congress to make knowledgeable policy around tech.
    • softwaredoug 8mo ago
      We used to have nice things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...
• amelius 8mo ago
  There will be a lawsuit about this.
  • ExoticPearTree 8mo ago
    To what end?
• jellyroll42 8mo ago
  Sam Altman has no scruples. Dark Triad personality. No reason to believe anything he says.
  • jacquesm 8mo ago
    The same goes for anybody still working at OpenAI past Monday morning 9 am.
    • Jeremy1026 8mo ago
      People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.
      • jacquesm 8mo ago
        There are many employers. OpenAI employees that quit on account of this will be in high demand at the other AI companies, especially the ones that don't bend over in 30 seconds when Uncle Donald comes calling.
      • deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      • pibaker 8mo ago
        Per levels.fyi, median salary of most openAI positions are above 300k. Even "technical writers" have a median pay of 197k. I searched around the internet and it seems like even entry level positions receive well above 150k. Apart from people with severe lifestyle bloat or an unholy number of dependents I doubt too many people working there will face immediate financial difficulties if they quit. Anyway, it is also amusing to hear tech people defend their right to earn some of the fattest salaries on this planet using the smol bean technique after a decade of "why wouldn't the West Virginian coal miner just learn to code." It was always about maintaining the lifestyle of yearly Japan vacations and MacBook upgrades and never about subsistence.
        • otabdeveloper4 8mo ago
• slibhb 8mo ago
  It's almost like the Trump administration wanted to switch providers and this whole debate over red lines was a pretext. With this administration, decisions often come down to money. There are already reports that Brockman and Altman have either donated or promised large sums of money to Trump/Trump super pacs
  • yeahforsureman 8mo ago
    Can't recall the source right now (it would've been on one of the several podcasts I listened to on Friday I think), but there's a story/rumor to the effect that at some point during Claude's earlier deployment at the Pentagon — might've well been in the context of the Venezuela/Maduro operation — someone at Anthropic had in one way or another flagged some kind of legal(ity) concerns regarding the relevant operation (and/or perhaps Anthropic's role in it) with Palantir, who was maintaining the Claude deployments for the DoD. The story goes that after Palantir had then relayed this information further to DoD, Hegseth had this major fit over how Anthropic's hippie-ass North California woke bros should have no say in matters relating to national security, that of Hegseth's "warfighters" or whatever, etc... Also, in the latest Hard Fork episode, Casey or Kevin mentions how the DoD undersecretary in charge of this contract doesn't apparently get along with or even pretty much hates Amodei for some reason. I think this might be the same undersecretary dude who actively commented the whole contract term controversy on X yesterday. Too bad I can't recall his name either.
• bastawhiz 8mo ago
  Altman donated a million to the Trump inauguration fund. Brockman is the largest private maga donor. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what's going on here.
  • bmitc 8mo ago
    Agreed. These guys are traitors.
• _heimdall 8mo ago
  Anthropic demanded defining the redlines. OpenAI and others are hiding behind the veil of what is "lawful use" today. They aren't defining their own redlines and are ignoring the executive branch's authority to change what is "lawful" tomorrow.
  • Nevermark 8mo ago
    Or the increasing impunity all three branches of government are giving themselves with regard to bad faith interpretations of the law, and a lack of government accountability when they color outside the lines. Much of the impunity is now Supreme Court settled law. We see clearly unconstitutional behavior every day, and there is no systematic, timely or effective, push back from any constitutionally enabled oversight. Checks and balances don't work, when players are more loyal to party than branch or constitution. Unfortunately, there are no constitutional checks, balances or limits on single party control. And single party control negates all the others. That one party can majority control all three branches is a serious failure mode in political incentives (bipartisanship is highly disincentivized) and governance (even temporary or shaky full control incentivizes making full control permanent over all other "policies"). Until the last few decades, diverse concerns across states avoided tight centralization within parties, and therefore across branches.
    • pjc50 8mo ago
      However there's one overriding concern which has got American to this point: "anti woke". That is, reinstating the load bearing racism and sexism.
      • ozmodiar 8mo ago
        A lot of that turned out to be pushed by Epstein and his associates. It's not hard to figure out why they would enjoy a world with lots of racism, sexism and general inequity. Its really disturbing when you consider how much power this network still has.
        • 8mo ago
• breakitmakeit 8mo ago
  [dead]
• kelnos 8mo ago
  The red lines are not the same. Anthropic refuses to allow their models to be used for any mass surveillance or fully-automated weapons systems. OpenAI only requires that the DoD follows existing law/regulation when it comes to those uses. Unfortunately, existing law is more permissive than Anthropic would have been.
• tosapple 8mo ago
  [dead]
• jrochkind1 8mo ago
  Anthropic wanted to put those restrictions in the contract. OpenAI said they'll just trust their own "guardrails" in the training, they don't need it in the contract. (I'm not sure I believe "guardrails" can prevent mass surveillance of civilians?) Very gracious of OpenAI to say Anthropic should not be designated a supply chain risk after sniping their $200 million contract by being willing to contractually let the government do whatever they like without restrictions.
  • Barbing 8mo ago
    >(I'm not sure I believe "guardrails" can prevent mass surveillance of civilians?) Right, wouldn't they need a moderation layer that could, for example, fire if it analyzed & labeled too many banal English conversations? They really gave training credit for guardtrails? I mean, it could perhaps reject prompts about designing social credit systems sometimes, but I can't imagine realistic mitigations to mass domestic surveillance generally.
  • lostnground 8mo ago
    It cannot really oversee this. If you can decompose a problem into individual steps that are not, in themselves, against the agent's alignment, it's certainly possible to have the aggregate do so.
  • Symmetry 8mo ago
    How confident are we, with OpenAI's recent very large contribution to Trump's PAC, that OpenAI wasn't working to get Anthropic designated a supply chain risk behind the scenes? I don't want to be too paranoid here but given Sam's reputation and cui bono I don't think we can really rule this out either.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• emsign 8mo ago
  They are obviously lying. OpenAI is not to be trusted anymore.
• gzread 8mo ago
  OpenAI donated $25,000,000 to Trump, that's why. Now people are cancelling ChatGPT subscriptions, so he needs to walk back the optics.
• skrebbel 8mo ago
  It's called corruption.
• ChildOfChaos 8mo ago
  Brockman donating $25 million dollars in January might have a little something to do with it..
• gigatexal 8mo ago
  Exactly. This is very shady. Too many openAI investors in Trump’s orbit. And it could be that openAI will say it’s their policy but whereas Anthropic wanted oversight that their redlines were enforced OpenAI I think will just turn a blind eye. It’s double speak. It’s disingenuous. It’s the kind of business play Trump Likes because it’s nefarious and screws someone over like Trump’s very delayed if paid at all contractors and staff.
• JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > based on Altman's statements The dude is notorious for being a compulsive liar, even if supporters have to admit as much.
• matchagaucho 8mo ago
  The OpenAI PR implies that Anthropic had a "usage-policy" clause with no actual enforcement. Whereas OpenAI won their contract on the ability to operationally enforce the red lines with their cloud-only deployment model.
• FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
  They can say it on X. But will they refuse to do work?