3 ms·

I read the terms regarding mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Both OpenAI and Anthropic had similar holdbacks AFAICT. [0] > The Pentagon has agreed to O

by k310 8mo ago

I read the terms regarding mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Both OpenAI and Anthropic had similar holdbacks AFAICT. [0] > The Pentagon has agreed to OpenAI's rules for deploying its technology safely in classified settings, though no contract has been signed, a source familiar with the talks tells Axios. > Why it matters: The Pentagon has blasted OpenAI rival Anthropic for days, contending its red lines for AI use in the military -- mass surveillance and autonomous weapons -- are philosophical and "woke." > Now, the department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, appears to have accepted OpenAI's similar conditions. One big difference OpenAI exec becomes top Trump donor with $25 million gift [1] I guess that makes it "less woke". This is reprehensible political bullshit. [0] https://archive.ph/9NcMf#selection-579.0-611.135 https://archive.ph/9NcMf#selection-579.0-611.135 [1] https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/brockman-openai-top-trump-donor-21273419.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/brockman-openai-top-trum...

rvz 8mo ago
This is hardly surprising given that OpenAI already signed a military contract. [0] Where was the open letter then? No-one cared. Recently, Claude was already used by the administration for the operation in Venezuela [1] alongside Palantir. Anthropic did nothing at the time and again... No-one cared. Now everyone cares when Anthropic finally said No? The decision for the contract was already predetermined for OpenAI, even with the open letter. So the question is, why wasn't the open letter against OpenAI done last year when they signed that first military contract? Either way, it seems that OpenAI and Anthropic were all OK with the US government using their models for warfare so really there is no point in defending both of them or even the employees who knew beforehand. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-military-contract-warfighting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-mi... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/14/us-military-anthropic-ai-model-claude-venezuela-raid https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/14/us-milita...
- lotyrin 8mo ago
  How sure are we that something fishy isn't going on with the models and the alignment research teams and the answers the model is giving? Like maybe Claude's alignment made it worse at trying to mask as Allied Magacomputer than GPT and that's why they're up in arms?
- sigmar 8mo ago
  >Now everyone cares when Anthropic finally said No? DoD started asking for the ability to do more stuff. That's the issue here. "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now: Mass domestic surveillance... Fully autonomous weapons." https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war >So the question is, why wasn't the open letter against OpenAI done last year when they signed that first military contract? again, this story isn't about people that are against any military contract.
  - skygazer 8mo ago
    I think people that aren’t objecting to AI mass surveillance of populations: haven’t recognized how thorough and invasive these technologies will become; think the current governments share their values and lists of enemies; naively think government priorities will never change, and that scopes will never increase.
  - rvz 8mo ago
    > DoD started asking for the ability to do more stuff. That's the issue here. The DoD (NSA) has crossed those lines before with big tech when they allowed mass domestic surveillance on their own citizens (PRISIM) in the past. They are willing to break laws to get the job done which probably in 10 years time those actions would be found illegal later. By then it would be too late. Companies should expect that governments may try to bend or even break rules or laws under veiled pretenses. So why expect that they would be any different today? It is the nature of governments. Scorpion (DoD) tells frog (Anthropic) to help them cross the river on the condition that they won't kill them. If you knew that the Scorpion always breaches the contract first, why work with them in the first place? > again, this story isn't about people that are against any military contract. Gen AI mass surveillance conducted by the adminstration (or any) is already done by Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle and Palantir and soon xAI (via X). So again, no point is being made here. Given all the above, the clear indication was OpenAI already signed a military contract last year. Why didn't the employees and insiders make an open letter pledging that AI should not be used for mass surveillance back then?
xvector 8mo ago
No, OpenAI has consented to "all legal use" whereas Anthropic required the redlines to be in the ToS itself, regardless of what's legal. So for all intents and purposes the DoD can simply ignore OAI's redlines.
softwaredoug 8mo ago
“ though no contract has been signed” Is doing a lot of work here

by k310 8mo ago

rvz 8mo ago

This is hardly surprising given that OpenAI already signed a military contract. [0] Where was the open letter then? No-one cared. Recently, Claude was already used by the administration for the operation in Venezuela [1] alongside Palantir. Anthropic did nothing at the time and again... No-one cared. Now everyone cares when Anthropic finally said No? The decision for the contract was already predetermined for OpenAI, even with the open letter. So the question is, why wasn't the open letter against OpenAI done last year when they signed that first military contract? Either way, it seems that OpenAI and Anthropic were all OK with the US government using their models for warfare so really there is no point in defending both of them or even the employees who knew beforehand. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-military-contract-warfighting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-mi... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/14/us-military-anthropic-ai-model-claude-venezuela-raid https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/14/us-milita...

lotyrin 8mo ago
How sure are we that something fishy isn't going on with the models and the alignment research teams and the answers the model is giving? Like maybe Claude's alignment made it worse at trying to mask as Allied Magacomputer than GPT and that's why they're up in arms?
sigmar 8mo ago
>Now everyone cares when Anthropic finally said No? DoD started asking for the ability to do more stuff. That's the issue here. "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now: Mass domestic surveillance... Fully autonomous weapons." https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war >So the question is, why wasn't the open letter against OpenAI done last year when they signed that first military contract? again, this story isn't about people that are against any military contract.
- skygazer 8mo ago
  I think people that aren’t objecting to AI mass surveillance of populations: haven’t recognized how thorough and invasive these technologies will become; think the current governments share their values and lists of enemies; naively think government priorities will never change, and that scopes will never increase.
- rvz 8mo ago
  > DoD started asking for the ability to do more stuff. That's the issue here. The DoD (NSA) has crossed those lines before with big tech when they allowed mass domestic surveillance on their own citizens (PRISIM) in the past. They are willing to break laws to get the job done which probably in 10 years time those actions would be found illegal later. By then it would be too late. Companies should expect that governments may try to bend or even break rules or laws under veiled pretenses. So why expect that they would be any different today? It is the nature of governments. Scorpion (DoD) tells frog (Anthropic) to help them cross the river on the condition that they won't kill them. If you knew that the Scorpion always breaches the contract first, why work with them in the first place? > again, this story isn't about people that are against any military contract. Gen AI mass surveillance conducted by the adminstration (or any) is already done by Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle and Palantir and soon xAI (via X). So again, no point is being made here. Given all the above, the clear indication was OpenAI already signed a military contract last year. Why didn't the employees and insiders make an open letter pledging that AI should not be used for mass surveillance back then?

xvector 8mo ago

No, OpenAI has consented to "all legal use" whereas Anthropic required the redlines to be in the ToS itself, regardless of what's legal. So for all intents and purposes the DoD can simply ignore OAI's redlines.

softwaredoug 8mo ago

“ though no contract has been signed” Is doing a lot of work here