6 ms·

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging.

When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets for itself."

sakesun 8mo ago
> it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. This is my first thought as well. It's too obvious. He should have consulted ChatGPT before the announcement.
- shigawire 8mo ago
  More likely assumed (perhaps rightfully) that there would be no consequences anyway.
cheema33 8mo ago
> OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets for itself." I believe this understanding is correct. The issue many people have these days with Dept. of War, and most of Trump admin is that they have little respect for laws. They only follow the ones they like and openly ignore the ones that are inconvenient. Dept of "War" should have zero problems agreeing to the two conditions Anthropic outlined, if they were honest brokers. But I think most of us know that they are not. Calling them dishonest brokers seems very charitable.
- reactordev 8mo ago
  I haven’t seen them follow a law yet
- lmeyerov 8mo ago
  I find it confusing in most directions. Ex: For the above statement, if they're truly dishonest brokers and openly ignore the rules that are inconvenient, they would have zero problems agreeing to Anthropic's terms and then violating them. So what you say may be quite true, but there would still need to be more to the story for it to make sense. Ex: DoW officials are stating that they were shocked that their vendor checked in on whether signed contractual safety terms were violated: They require a vendor who won't do such a check. But that opens up other confusing oversight questions, eg, instead of a backchannel check, would they have preferred straight to the IG? Or the IG more aggressively checking these things unasked so vendors don't? It's hard to imagine such an important and publicly visible negotiation being driven by internal regulatory politicking. I wonder if there's a straighter line for all these things. Irrespective of whether folks like or dislike the administration, they love hardball negotiations and to make money. So as with most things in business and government, follow the money...
  - 3eb7988a1663 8mo ago
    I have no idea what exactly Anthropic was offering the DoD, but if there were a LLM product, possible that the existing guardrails prevented the model from executing on the DoD vision. "Find all of the terrorists in this photo", "Which targets should I bomb first?" Even if the DoD wanted to ignore the legal terms, the model itself would not cooperate. DoD required a specially trained product without limitations.
- aardvarkr 8mo ago
  I don’t care who is in the whitehouse. Snowden revealed the crimes of the NSA in 2013 when Obama was president. They’re all going to want to use AI for mass surveillance
  - Tanjreeve 8mo ago
    AI doesn't add anything to the ability to do mass surveillance. That genie was already out of the bottle from clouds and big data systems. At best AI might take on some of the gruntwork for drawing conclusions from profiles but it's doing it's usual thing of being a powerful interface built on top of other systems.
    - mithr 8mo ago
      > AI doesn't add anything to the ability to do mass surveillance I recommend reading Yuval Noah Harari's Nexus for a deep discussion around this. He makes the point that what makes this AI age much more dangerous for mass surveillance isn't just the collection of data, which has indeed been possible for a while, but the new ability to have AI sift through that enormous volume of information, an ability which until recently has not been possible in a meaningful way without a ton of manual work to support it. Older attempts at mass control of a population already involved mass surveillance, even in a large amount of detail, but even when capturing in detail all citizens' activities, there were just not enough people around to be able to dig through that and analyze it. This has been somewhat true even with the help of computers, though computers have certainly already been making this easier. But now you can just give all that data to an AI with your instructions, and it'll apply some sort of "judgement" on your behalf, completely autonomously, and even perform actions against those folks it finds, again autonomously, without needing to manually build a whole infrastructure to do that with manual rules. That's a very meaningful upgrade for someone wanting to control a population.
      - Tanjreeve 8mo ago
        That's still actuating using existing infrastructure that already existed. I agree with the summarise + decide part maybe being quicker sometimes but the bottleneck remains collection and collation and actioning infrastructure
- ExoticPearTree 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - xrd 8mo ago
    If I start a small business that sells Apples and the US government comes to me and says "we want to buy your apples and fire them at high speed to" these are now your words "kill adversaries through any means necessary." If I say, no, then am I stopping the military? I feel like it is reasonable that I can say "no, I don't want to sell you my apples." I cannot for the life of me figure out why that means I am stopping the military from killing people. The US Military will definitely still be able to kill people for centuries. I'm just saying I don't want to participate in it.
    - ExoticPearTree 8mo ago
      In the context of the larger discussion, if you already sold apples to the military, you cannot go to them and say you don't like how they're using the apples you sold them.
      - sfink 8mo ago
        In the context of the larger discussion, Anthropic thought of that ahead of time and put the restrictions into the contract that the government agreed to. So "already sold" is a non-sequitur; that's not the situation under discussion.
    - throwaway173738 8mo ago
      More to the point, if everyone stopped selling anything to the military they would still be able to kill people with their bare hands. People are arguably very good at killing people and it takes civilization to train us not to kill each other.
  - throwaway290 8mo ago
    Any company is free to choose its business partners and set terms to them. "Don't like our terms, don't partner with us" If government can force any private company to work specially for government then US is no better than PRC
- tqwhite 8mo ago
  Mass surveillance is completely legal. It's just stupid to say its not.
  - veidr 8mo ago
    I don't think that's what is being said, mainly? Like that's why Anthropic wants to have it in the contract(s) with the government? At the same time, it is expressly illegal in some circumstances; that was the whole core of the Snowden revelations. The NSA and CIA are expressly curtailed from doing that by law — there are cases where they may surveil citizens with a court order, but not "mass" surveillance. There are some restrictions on the military along those same lines. Keywords: Executive Order 12333, FISA, National Security Act, Posse Comitatus Act
oxdgd38 8mo ago
We know how this story will end for Dario. See Oppenheimer, Turing, Lavoisier, Galileo, Socretes etc. Power does not reside in the hands of people with knowledge or even wealth. And most technical people have not taken a political philosophy course or even a philosphy course. The Ring of Gyges story is 4000 years old.
- beepbooptheory 8mo ago
  I do not believe the Ring of Gyges preceded Plato making it up for The Republic... Where are you getting 4000 years? Also maybe not seeing the message or connection here... That myth isn't really about who has power or not, right? It's kind of just a trite little "why you should do good even when no one is watching" thing. It just serves Socrates for his argument with Thrasymachus, and leads us into book 2 where it really gets going with Glaucon and all that. This is from memory so I might be a little off.
  - oxdgd38 8mo ago
    I got it from Tamar Gendlers philosophy and human nature course on open yale courses. She says it was a popular folk story passed down orally much before it was written in a book. Plato used it because people grew up hearing the story. The story is asking whats the source of morality? Who decides where the lines are? And its not scientists. Science produces the Ring.
    - beepbooptheory 8mo ago
      I was wrong, it's in Book II. This is "Socratic irony", its Glaucon speaking, assuming the position of an argument from earlier. Socrates himself of course doesn't believe in this conclusion... we are going to learn later that justice is a form, based on the Good! This is all the doxa of one still in the cave. > According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result—when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; whereas soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497.txt https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497.txt
_heimdall 8mo ago
I'd have money on OpenAI hiding behind the "all lawful use" phrasing to claim high levels of protection. He also claimed that they would build rules into the model the DoD would use, preventing misuse. Aka he claims OpenAI will quickly solve alignment and build it right in...I wouldn't hold my breath.
- conception 8mo ago
  All lawful use. And then they followed up with “intentionally doing illegal things.” If they happen to accidentally do illegal things, OpenAI is ok with it.
  - aardvarkr 8mo ago
    I hate this so much. The nsa’s spying on everyone in 2010 was “legal” and I can only imagine how much worse it is now with AI to follow your digital footprint around everywhere. Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden
    - belter 8mo ago
      [dead]
    - lukan 8mo ago
      "Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden" Probably because most don't want to end up in russia?
      - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
        I feel so sad about snowden sometimes. I tried reading his book's first few pages on how when he was growing up, he could be anyone in a forum and there was this sense of anonymity and at the same time, just freedom. And later on when he saw just how much the overreach of govt. was etc., he did what others couldn't. It wasn't as if there weren't any other contractors like Snowden, but there were no other whistleblowers like Snowden and where'd that leave him? In a country far away from his motherland and being worried about his safety. Being called god knows what by the country at home and most general people don't even care. Snowden didn't do it for the money, he did it for what he felt was right and that's so rare. Its so sad how when I searched up on Snowden on youtube, the first thing I found was ex CIA agent claiming Snowden wasn't innocent and how he had to befriend russia but at the same time, that was only because US would have literally killed him and made an example out of him to whistleblow about such a large-scale mass surveillance “What kind of asshole reveals the fact we’re the assholes, then doesn’t let us kill him!” is one heck of a comment I found. Also, We will charge the whistleblower with death but we will not take any action against the act which was whistleblown in the first place (:
fmajid 8mo ago
Or, as is likely, OpenAI models have no guardrails, Anthropic's did and the DoD was bumping into them.
- galangalalgol 8mo ago
  Does anyone else notice claude is just plain better at reasoning? It may not just be post training guardrails. It would not surprise me of it was something anthropic couldn't simply disable. Either from reinforcement or even training corpus curation. Of all the models, claude is the only one that makes me wonder if they have figured out something beyond stochastic language generation and aren't telling anyone
  - solenoid0937 8mo ago
    I have noticed this too, despite the close benchmark results Claude just works better. It knows when to push back, it has an "agency"... there is something there that I don't see with Gemini or OpenAI's best paid models.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
For consumer ChatGPT accounts, go to their privacy portal [1] and, first, delete your GPTs, and then, second, delete your account. [1] https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control
- teruakohatu 8mo ago
  Why? If you have so little faith in them that they won’t honour the privacy controls you should also delete your non-consumer account too.
- Towaway69 8mo ago
  How do I cancel my subscription to the DoW? The bigger picture is that the DoW got what it wanted and it got it by threatening one company while the other did its bidding.
  - davidw 8mo ago
    By voting.
    - don_esteban 8mo ago
      Did the nsa's spying on everyone change between democratic and republican governments?
      - ori_b 8mo ago
        Did you vote in the primaries for a candidate that might change it?
        jrflowers 8mo ago
        I like that I can’t tell if this is some sort of admonition for not voting centrist enough in a primary that didn’t happen or for not voting left enough in a primary that did not happen. It seems like if you’re going to be so bold as to do a callout you might as well say what for (and why you either picked or specifically skipped a primary that did not happen)
LarsDu88 8mo ago
Greg Brockman donated 25 million dollars, and DoW gives OpenAI 200 million dollar contract. Just good 'ol fashion grifting mixed with a bit of government corruption. This country has been boiling the frog of graft, grifting, and corruption too long.
cobbzilla 8mo ago
per other Snowden comments, “all lawful use” means whatever we want it to mean. Secret FISA court decisions will say the use is lawful, but you’ll never get to read or challenge those decisions.
jaredklewis 8mo ago
> DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. I think it’s also possible DoW didn’t care about the conditions but just wanted some pretext to punish Anthropic because Dario isn’t a Trump boot licker like the rest of the SV CEOs.
- sigwinch 8mo ago
  I think this is supported. Hegseth has said numerous things about curly hair. I read that his reaction to Dario started with his hair.
hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
Agree with this completely. But besides Sam Altman, this whole episode has made me totally and completely lose all respect for Paul Graham. I used to really idolize pg, and I really used to like his essays, but over the years I've found his essays increasingly displayed a disturbing lack of introspection, like they'd always seem to say that starting a startup is the best thing anyone can do, and if you're not good at startups then you kind of suck. But his continued support of Altman in this instance (see https://x.com/paulg/status/2027908286146875591 https://x.com/paulg/status/2027908286146875591, and the comment in that thread where he replies "yes") is just so extra disappointing and baffling. First, his big commendation for Altman is that he's doing an AMA? Give me an f'ing break. When someone is a great spin doctor I'm not going to commend them for doing more spinning. It's like he has total blinders on and is unwilling to see how sama's actions in this instance are so disgusting and duplicitous. Maybe subconsciously he knows he's responsible for really launching sama into the public consciousness, so he now just is incapable of seeing the undeniably shitty things sama has done. Oh well, I guess it's just another tech leader from the late 90s/early 00s who has just shown me he's kind of a shitty person like a lot of us.
- jahnu 8mo ago
  Billions of dollars is a hell of a drug.
- causal 8mo ago
  Yeah he has some great essays but also some that I find really dumb. Reading “Founder Mode” is when I realized he’s just as susceptible to fallacy as the rest of us.
- nextaccountic 8mo ago
  Never meet your heroes
spwa4 8mo ago
Except if there's one defining property of the last 4-5 administrations it is that they definitely and constantly violate the rules they set for themselves. With every new administration it gets worse and worse. And while this administration is brazen about this, it's not really a drastic change anywhere. In fact most EU laws (GPDR, AI regulation, Chat Control) are directly, up front, declaring they themselves won't respect it. They very directly have one set of rules for states, government employees, ... and ANOTHER set of rules for everyone else. And they're incredibly brazen. For private individuals, companies it goes very far, it's essentially impossible to even know what does and does not violate the GPDR, and you can't ask the courts, that's not allowed. You also cannot use the courts to compel government to do anything under these laws. For governments, when it comes to what's allowed, it goes incredibly far. Governments can declare any action legal under the GPDR, before and after the fact, without parliament involvement. It does not matter if that action was done by the government themselves, or if it's an action by a private company (so the government can use subcontractors for any violation of the GPDR) This means that, for THE example given for GPDR protection: medical information. Medical insurance in the EU is either state-owned or has exceptions, the law does the exact opposite of what it appears to do: it makes all your medical information available for medical insurers. And the police (e.g. to find you). And the tax office. And courts. And medical institutions themselves (to deny transplants to smokers). And ... And while doctors (and priests) used to be huge no-no's when it came to information gathering, that's no longer the case. If a doctor uses the state required medical file, your medical information flows straight into a state database, immediately searchable for everyone the GPDR supposedly protects you against.
qwertox 8mo ago
@sama's did say: "[..] will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control". Law is what Trump decides.
hollosi 8mo ago
Enforcement is the real issue, not the specific red lines, regardless of what Anthropic claims and news outlets repeat. Verification requires access to classified logs. These logs would attract the spies of the whole world. Even if these logs are in principle for "past actions", in practice past logs (for war games, for example) would compromise future strategy. Since these manual audits are too risky, the only alternative is to hard-code limits into the AI. But are we ready trust an AI to "judge" a mission and refuse to execute during a crisis? Anthropic wanted technical enforcement, the Pentagon wanted trust. It’s a choice between two bad options: an unaccountable military and an unreliable AI kill switch. They are both very dangerous, just in different ways.
filoeleven 8mo ago
It's not the department of war. Don't call it that. > However, only an act of Congress can legally and formally change the department's name and secretary's title, so "Department of Defense" and "secretary of defense" remain legally official. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]

sakesun 8mo ago

> it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. This is my first thought as well. It's too obvious. He should have consulted ChatGPT before the announcement.

shigawire 8mo ago
More likely assumed (perhaps rightfully) that there would be no consequences anyway.

cheema33 8mo ago

> OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets for itself." I believe this understanding is correct. The issue many people have these days with Dept. of War, and most of Trump admin is that they have little respect for laws. They only follow the ones they like and openly ignore the ones that are inconvenient. Dept of "War" should have zero problems agreeing to the two conditions Anthropic outlined, if they were honest brokers. But I think most of us know that they are not. Calling them dishonest brokers seems very charitable.

reactordev 8mo ago
I haven’t seen them follow a law yet
lmeyerov 8mo ago
I find it confusing in most directions. Ex: For the above statement, if they're truly dishonest brokers and openly ignore the rules that are inconvenient, they would have zero problems agreeing to Anthropic's terms and then violating them. So what you say may be quite true, but there would still need to be more to the story for it to make sense. Ex: DoW officials are stating that they were shocked that their vendor checked in on whether signed contractual safety terms were violated: They require a vendor who won't do such a check. But that opens up other confusing oversight questions, eg, instead of a backchannel check, would they have preferred straight to the IG? Or the IG more aggressively checking these things unasked so vendors don't? It's hard to imagine such an important and publicly visible negotiation being driven by internal regulatory politicking. I wonder if there's a straighter line for all these things. Irrespective of whether folks like or dislike the administration, they love hardball negotiations and to make money. So as with most things in business and government, follow the money...
- 3eb7988a1663 8mo ago
  I have no idea what exactly Anthropic was offering the DoD, but if there were a LLM product, possible that the existing guardrails prevented the model from executing on the DoD vision. "Find all of the terrorists in this photo", "Which targets should I bomb first?" Even if the DoD wanted to ignore the legal terms, the model itself would not cooperate. DoD required a specially trained product without limitations.
aardvarkr 8mo ago
I don’t care who is in the whitehouse. Snowden revealed the crimes of the NSA in 2013 when Obama was president. They’re all going to want to use AI for mass surveillance
- Tanjreeve 8mo ago
  AI doesn't add anything to the ability to do mass surveillance. That genie was already out of the bottle from clouds and big data systems. At best AI might take on some of the gruntwork for drawing conclusions from profiles but it's doing it's usual thing of being a powerful interface built on top of other systems.
  - mithr 8mo ago
    > AI doesn't add anything to the ability to do mass surveillance I recommend reading Yuval Noah Harari's Nexus for a deep discussion around this. He makes the point that what makes this AI age much more dangerous for mass surveillance isn't just the collection of data, which has indeed been possible for a while, but the new ability to have AI sift through that enormous volume of information, an ability which until recently has not been possible in a meaningful way without a ton of manual work to support it. Older attempts at mass control of a population already involved mass surveillance, even in a large amount of detail, but even when capturing in detail all citizens' activities, there were just not enough people around to be able to dig through that and analyze it. This has been somewhat true even with the help of computers, though computers have certainly already been making this easier. But now you can just give all that data to an AI with your instructions, and it'll apply some sort of "judgement" on your behalf, completely autonomously, and even perform actions against those folks it finds, again autonomously, without needing to manually build a whole infrastructure to do that with manual rules. That's a very meaningful upgrade for someone wanting to control a population.
    - Tanjreeve 8mo ago
      That's still actuating using existing infrastructure that already existed. I agree with the summarise + decide part maybe being quicker sometimes but the bottleneck remains collection and collation and actioning infrastructure
ExoticPearTree 8mo ago
[flagged]
- xrd 8mo ago
  If I start a small business that sells Apples and the US government comes to me and says "we want to buy your apples and fire them at high speed to" these are now your words "kill adversaries through any means necessary." If I say, no, then am I stopping the military? I feel like it is reasonable that I can say "no, I don't want to sell you my apples." I cannot for the life of me figure out why that means I am stopping the military from killing people. The US Military will definitely still be able to kill people for centuries. I'm just saying I don't want to participate in it.
  - ExoticPearTree 8mo ago
    In the context of the larger discussion, if you already sold apples to the military, you cannot go to them and say you don't like how they're using the apples you sold them.
    - sfink 8mo ago
      In the context of the larger discussion, Anthropic thought of that ahead of time and put the restrictions into the contract that the government agreed to. So "already sold" is a non-sequitur; that's not the situation under discussion.
  - throwaway173738 8mo ago
    More to the point, if everyone stopped selling anything to the military they would still be able to kill people with their bare hands. People are arguably very good at killing people and it takes civilization to train us not to kill each other.
- throwaway290 8mo ago
  Any company is free to choose its business partners and set terms to them. "Don't like our terms, don't partner with us" If government can force any private company to work specially for government then US is no better than PRC
tqwhite 8mo ago
Mass surveillance is completely legal. It's just stupid to say its not.
- veidr 8mo ago
  I don't think that's what is being said, mainly? Like that's why Anthropic wants to have it in the contract(s) with the government? At the same time, it is expressly illegal in some circumstances; that was the whole core of the Snowden revelations. The NSA and CIA are expressly curtailed from doing that by law — there are cases where they may surveil citizens with a court order, but not "mass" surveillance. There are some restrictions on the military along those same lines. Keywords: Executive Order 12333, FISA, National Security Act, Posse Comitatus Act

oxdgd38 8mo ago

We know how this story will end for Dario. See Oppenheimer, Turing, Lavoisier, Galileo, Socretes etc. Power does not reside in the hands of people with knowledge or even wealth. And most technical people have not taken a political philosophy course or even a philosphy course. The Ring of Gyges story is 4000 years old.

beepbooptheory 8mo ago
I do not believe the Ring of Gyges preceded Plato making it up for The Republic... Where are you getting 4000 years? Also maybe not seeing the message or connection here... That myth isn't really about who has power or not, right? It's kind of just a trite little "why you should do good even when no one is watching" thing. It just serves Socrates for his argument with Thrasymachus, and leads us into book 2 where it really gets going with Glaucon and all that. This is from memory so I might be a little off.
- oxdgd38 8mo ago
  I got it from Tamar Gendlers philosophy and human nature course on open yale courses. She says it was a popular folk story passed down orally much before it was written in a book. Plato used it because people grew up hearing the story. The story is asking whats the source of morality? Who decides where the lines are? And its not scientists. Science produces the Ring.
  - beepbooptheory 8mo ago
    I was wrong, it's in Book II. This is "Socratic irony", its Glaucon speaking, assuming the position of an argument from earlier. Socrates himself of course doesn't believe in this conclusion... we are going to learn later that justice is a form, based on the Good! This is all the doxa of one still in the cave. > According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result—when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; whereas soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497.txt https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497.txt

_heimdall 8mo ago

I'd have money on OpenAI hiding behind the "all lawful use" phrasing to claim high levels of protection. He also claimed that they would build rules into the model the DoD would use, preventing misuse. Aka he claims OpenAI will quickly solve alignment and build it right in...I wouldn't hold my breath.

conception 8mo ago
All lawful use. And then they followed up with “intentionally doing illegal things.” If they happen to accidentally do illegal things, OpenAI is ok with it.
- aardvarkr 8mo ago
  I hate this so much. The nsa’s spying on everyone in 2010 was “legal” and I can only imagine how much worse it is now with AI to follow your digital footprint around everywhere. Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden
  - belter 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - lukan 8mo ago
    "Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden" Probably because most don't want to end up in russia?
    - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
      I feel so sad about snowden sometimes. I tried reading his book's first few pages on how when he was growing up, he could be anyone in a forum and there was this sense of anonymity and at the same time, just freedom. And later on when he saw just how much the overreach of govt. was etc., he did what others couldn't. It wasn't as if there weren't any other contractors like Snowden, but there were no other whistleblowers like Snowden and where'd that leave him? In a country far away from his motherland and being worried about his safety. Being called god knows what by the country at home and most general people don't even care. Snowden didn't do it for the money, he did it for what he felt was right and that's so rare. Its so sad how when I searched up on Snowden on youtube, the first thing I found was ex CIA agent claiming Snowden wasn't innocent and how he had to befriend russia but at the same time, that was only because US would have literally killed him and made an example out of him to whistleblow about such a large-scale mass surveillance “What kind of asshole reveals the fact we’re the assholes, then doesn’t let us kill him!” is one heck of a comment I found. Also, We will charge the whistleblower with death but we will not take any action against the act which was whistleblown in the first place (:

fmajid 8mo ago

Or, as is likely, OpenAI models have no guardrails, Anthropic's did and the DoD was bumping into them.

galangalalgol 8mo ago
Does anyone else notice claude is just plain better at reasoning? It may not just be post training guardrails. It would not surprise me of it was something anthropic couldn't simply disable. Either from reinforcement or even training corpus curation. Of all the models, claude is the only one that makes me wonder if they have figured out something beyond stochastic language generation and aren't telling anyone
- solenoid0937 8mo ago
  I have noticed this too, despite the close benchmark results Claude just works better. It knows when to push back, it has an "agency"... there is something there that I don't see with Gemini or OpenAI's best paid models.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

For consumer ChatGPT accounts, go to their privacy portal [1] and, first, delete your GPTs, and then, second, delete your account. [1] https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control https://privacy.openai.com/policies?modal=take-control

teruakohatu 8mo ago
Why? If you have so little faith in them that they won’t honour the privacy controls you should also delete your non-consumer account too.
Towaway69 8mo ago
How do I cancel my subscription to the DoW? The bigger picture is that the DoW got what it wanted and it got it by threatening one company while the other did its bidding.
- davidw 8mo ago
  By voting.
  - don_esteban 8mo ago
    Did the nsa's spying on everyone change between democratic and republican governments?
    - ori_b 8mo ago
      Did you vote in the primaries for a candidate that might change it?
      - jrflowers 8mo ago
        I like that I can’t tell if this is some sort of admonition for not voting centrist enough in a primary that didn’t happen or for not voting left enough in a primary that did not happen. It seems like if you’re going to be so bold as to do a callout you might as well say what for (and why you either picked or specifically skipped a primary that did not happen)

LarsDu88 8mo ago

Greg Brockman donated 25 million dollars, and DoW gives OpenAI 200 million dollar contract. Just good 'ol fashion grifting mixed with a bit of government corruption. This country has been boiling the frog of graft, grifting, and corruption too long.

cobbzilla 8mo ago

per other Snowden comments, “all lawful use” means whatever we want it to mean. Secret FISA court decisions will say the use is lawful, but you’ll never get to read or challenge those decisions.

jaredklewis 8mo ago

> DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. I think it’s also possible DoW didn’t care about the conditions but just wanted some pretext to punish Anthropic because Dario isn’t a Trump boot licker like the rest of the SV CEOs.

sigwinch 8mo ago
I think this is supported. Hegseth has said numerous things about curly hair. I read that his reaction to Dario started with his hair.

hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago

Agree with this completely. But besides Sam Altman, this whole episode has made me totally and completely lose all respect for Paul Graham. I used to really idolize pg, and I really used to like his essays, but over the years I've found his essays increasingly displayed a disturbing lack of introspection, like they'd always seem to say that starting a startup is the best thing anyone can do, and if you're not good at startups then you kind of suck. But his continued support of Altman in this instance (see https://x.com/paulg/status/2027908286146875591 https://x.com/paulg/status/2027908286146875591, and the comment in that thread where he replies "yes") is just so extra disappointing and baffling. First, his big commendation for Altman is that he's doing an AMA? Give me an f'ing break. When someone is a great spin doctor I'm not going to commend them for doing more spinning. It's like he has total blinders on and is unwilling to see how sama's actions in this instance are so disgusting and duplicitous. Maybe subconsciously he knows he's responsible for really launching sama into the public consciousness, so he now just is incapable of seeing the undeniably shitty things sama has done. Oh well, I guess it's just another tech leader from the late 90s/early 00s who has just shown me he's kind of a shitty person like a lot of us.

jahnu 8mo ago
Billions of dollars is a hell of a drug.
causal 8mo ago
Yeah he has some great essays but also some that I find really dumb. Reading “Founder Mode” is when I realized he’s just as susceptible to fallacy as the rest of us.
nextaccountic 8mo ago
Never meet your heroes

spwa4 8mo ago

Except if there's one defining property of the last 4-5 administrations it is that they definitely and constantly violate the rules they set for themselves. With every new administration it gets worse and worse. And while this administration is brazen about this, it's not really a drastic change anywhere. In fact most EU laws (GPDR, AI regulation, Chat Control) are directly, up front, declaring they themselves won't respect it. They very directly have one set of rules for states, government employees, ... and ANOTHER set of rules for everyone else. And they're incredibly brazen. For private individuals, companies it goes very far, it's essentially impossible to even know what does and does not violate the GPDR, and you can't ask the courts, that's not allowed. You also cannot use the courts to compel government to do anything under these laws. For governments, when it comes to what's allowed, it goes incredibly far. Governments can declare any action legal under the GPDR, before and after the fact, without parliament involvement. It does not matter if that action was done by the government themselves, or if it's an action by a private company (so the government can use subcontractors for any violation of the GPDR) This means that, for THE example given for GPDR protection: medical information. Medical insurance in the EU is either state-owned or has exceptions, the law does the exact opposite of what it appears to do: it makes all your medical information available for medical insurers. And the police (e.g. to find you). And the tax office. And courts. And medical institutions themselves (to deny transplants to smokers). And ... And while doctors (and priests) used to be huge no-no's when it came to information gathering, that's no longer the case. If a doctor uses the state required medical file, your medical information flows straight into a state database, immediately searchable for everyone the GPDR supposedly protects you against.

qwertox 8mo ago

@sama's did say: "[..] will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control". Law is what Trump decides.

hollosi 8mo ago

Enforcement is the real issue, not the specific red lines, regardless of what Anthropic claims and news outlets repeat. Verification requires access to classified logs. These logs would attract the spies of the whole world. Even if these logs are in principle for "past actions", in practice past logs (for war games, for example) would compromise future strategy. Since these manual audits are too risky, the only alternative is to hard-code limits into the AI. But are we ready trust an AI to "judge" a mission and refuse to execute during a crisis? Anthropic wanted technical enforcement, the Pentagon wanted trust. It’s a choice between two bad options: an unaccountable military and an unreliable AI kill switch. They are both very dangerous, just in different ways.

filoeleven 8mo ago

It's not the department of war. Don't call it that. > However, only an act of Congress can legally and formally change the department's name and secretary's title, so "Department of Defense" and "secretary of defense" remain legally official. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]