I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue competing on the basis of differing services and not differing scruples). Given this understanding, I don't see why I should quit. If it turns out that the deal is being misdescribed or that it won't be enforced, I can see why I should quit, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that's the case.
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value in any case. If it is loose terms or a wink agreement to not check in on enforcement you're never going to be told that. We can imagine other scenerios where the terms stated were not the real reason for the blacklisting, but it's a real struggle (at least for me) to find an explanation for this deal that doesn't paint OpenAI in a very ethically questionable light.
This, for that check theyll be building the autonomous robots themselves, saying "theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!"
Back in 1960 us early detection systems mistook the moon for a massive nuclear first strike with 99.9% certainty.
With a fully autonomous system the world would have burned.
> Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year.
I sincerely doubt that's true. I hope it's not. $1m is a lot of money, but I find it hard to believe most people would be willing to indiscriminately kill a large number of people for it.
Never mind people in the US, there are plenty of people elsewhere happy to work with their governments who are doubtless developing such autonomous entities.
> Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year.
I will respond with a personal, related story. I was living in Hongkong when "democracy fell" in the late 2010s / early 2020s. It was depressing, and I wanted to leave. (I did later.) I was trying to explain to my parents (and relatives) why most highly skilled foreign workers just didn't care. I said: "Imagine you told a bunch of people in 1984 that they could move to Moscow to open a local office for a wealthy international corporation and get paid big money, like 500K+ in today's dollars. Fat expat package is included. How many people would take it? Most."
Another point completely unrelated to my previous story: Since the advent of pretty good LLMs starting in 2023, when I watch flims with warfare set in the future, it makes absolutely no sense that soldiers are still manually aiming. I'm not saying it will be like Terminator 2 right away, but surely the 19-22 year old operator will just point the weapon in the general direction of the target, then AI will handle the rest. And yet, we still see people manually aiming and shooting in these scenarios. Am I the only one who cringes when I see this? There is something uncanney valley about it, like seeing a character in a film using a flip phone post-2015! Maybe directors don't want to show us the ugly truth of the future of warfare.
I don't cringe because it's for dramatic/narrative effect. It's the same reason the crew of the Enterprise regularly beam into dangerous locations rather than sending a semi-autonomous drone. Or that despite having intelligent machines their operations are often very manual, as it is on many science fiction shows. The audience (if they think about it) realises this is not realistic and understands that the vast majority of our exploration would be done by unmanned/automated vessels. But that wouldn't be very interesting.
Other universes take it further - Warhammer 40k often features combatants fighting with melee weapons. Rule of cool and all that.
Agreed, but I think it goes far beyond warfare. The biggest "plot hole" in much scifi (IMO) is the lack of explanation for why all the depicted systems aren't autonomous. Most worldbuilding seems rather lazy to me, a haphazard mishmash of things that imply AGI and things that would only ever exist in a pre-ChatGPT world.
One of the few works that at least attempts to get this right is the Culture series where it's remarked on several different occasions that anything over some threshold of computing power has AGI built into it (but don't worry you're totally free, just ignore the hall monitor in all of your devices).
I mean this is not actually true and the statement justifies and vindicates those that do sell out by saying of course anyone would. There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things.
A better way is to say you can always find a cheap sellout at least than the morally dammed cannot claim equality of belief
> There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things.
I think those are not really comparable to OpenAI employees who leave, but that only underlines your point more:
Leaving OpenAI is not like death. In fact most of the employees will have an easy time finding a new job, given the resume of having worked at OpenAI. It is nowhere near any actual martyr.
You mean like all of the religious leaders who are actively supporting a defending a three time married adulterer? You’ll have to excuse my skepticism of the morality of “the moral majority”.
Religion is and always has been about control… it strikes me as exceedingly naive to be surprised the church is backing a pedophile, have you literally ever read any history of any kind?
Not claiming all religious people everywhere are some moral majority? Simply that people die for there beliefs and don't sellout. It happens in religion, politics etc. Also it's some super faulty logic to say look those prominent religious people support trump so all religous people support him is stupid. If that were the case Trump would win every election by massive margins. Trump might win 60/40 in rural areas the 40% he is losing is still very religous generally speaking because rural populations are religious. Cambridge MA voted for Biden by like 96% they have more than 4% of there populations that is also religious.
Also your point is kind of self defeating Trump's true believers dont sell Trump out no matter what he does. He could hide and suppress a pedophile conspiracy and his believers will still say he is tough on crime.
Selling out is bad I think people should passionate stand and be consistent in what they believe and do anything less shouldn't be celebrated or excused because its hard
1) I don't think you have read nor understood my argument. Stating that 80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump is not the the ding you think it is. Your imply 1/5 of Evangelicals don't sellout? I think that estimate is way too high and even if it was 99.99% of Evangelic Christians that doesn't excuse their selling hence my original statement. Say everyone sellsout so its okay to sell out is excusing in my opinion is abhorent behavior and suppport of an extremely dangerous leader. But this leads to point 2.
2) I am assuming your a democrat, congrats me to. I am also religiou, and I am assuming your not religous. But you don't see to undertand much about different religous groups and I think this sharp narrow view thinking really harms the democrats ability to reach out to religous people which is around 70-75% of american's according to pew research.
If you want to understand Evangelicals are basically defined by following some charismatic leader who either speaks for Christ, or has visions, or just claims to have all the answers. Believers will follow in any direction because they trust that person but when trust is lost they usually face a crisis of faith and leave that church or the faith all together because they didn't really have strong buy in to the ideals of chirst just that person. This is an extremely well documented occurence. While not all Evangelical people are that occurence a large number are and that architype perfectly describes Trump supporters and MAGA cultist. I think that explains the extreme overlap.
But also religion is a much more complex subject than 1 statistic, as being MAGA is not on the set of beliefs required to be Christian, In fact being a good person isn't either. I think it would be worth while to read up on up and coming people like James Talarico, who understand well that infusing the 2 philosophies is motivating. Because remember religion while being used to do horrible things was also used to immensely liberal things. Universal voting is a protestant thing, anti slavery is largerly a religous movement against white supremacy. The civil rights movement is baked in religion.
Understanding religion as equal to Trump support is corrosive the game of politics and pandering the playroom of vanity. As it doesn't help change anything and is just social meeting points to talk that way. I don't care for vanity I care about wining political power and using it run the country well and help people. I care about uplifting people economically, so they have the freedom to explore whatever faith, athiestism, or whatever they want because that liberality I believe is inherent into the decency of the human condition.
I very much understand religion and I’m surrounded by religious folks as a 52 year old Black guy growing up with religious parents and still living in the Bible Belt and I actually went to a private Christian mostly white school through elementary school.
I understand the difference between socially liberal Christian churches like the ones that were key to the civil rights movement and today are fightijg ICE.
My own wife is what I consider a very liberal Christian. She is a tither and she also is a dance fitness instructor and almost every male fitness I instructor in her organization is gay and she considers them friends and she is as far away from MAGA as possible. (I was a fitness instructor part time for over a decade myself in my younger years and I am well aware that all male instructors aren’t gay).
But the Black led mega churches also aren’t speaking up strongly about all of the things that clearly go up against the “RFC of Christianity” - adultery, bearing false witness, etc.
Yep, theoretically it could just be oligarchic corruption and not institutional insanity at the highest levels of the government. What a reassuring relief it would be to believe that.
I agree with your assessment, but given the past behaviour of this administration I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the real reason is "petulance".
I agree it makes little sense, and I think if all players were rational it never would have played out this way. My understanding is that there are other reasons (i.e., beyond differing red lines) that made the OpenAI deal more palatable, but unfortunately the information shared with me has not been made public so I won't comment on specifics. I know that's unsatisfying, but I hope it serves as some very mild evidence that it's not all a big fat lie.
Your ballooned unvested equity package is preventing you from seeing the difference between “our offering/deal is better” and “designated supply chain risk and threatening all companies who do business with the government to stop using Anthropic or will be similarly dropped” (which is well past what the designation limits). It’s easier being honest.
The supply chain risk stuff is bogus. Anthropic is a great, trustworthy company, and no enemy of America. I genuinely root for Anthropic, because its success benefits consumers and all the charities that Anthropic employees have pledged equity toward.
Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me. I can see arguments on both sides and I acknowledge it’s probably impossible to eliminate all possible bias within myself.
One thing I hope we can agree on is that it would be good if the contract (or its relevant portions) is made public so that people can judge for themselves, without having to speculate about who’s being honest and who’s lying.
>Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me.
That isn't what many of us are challenging here. We're not concerned about OpenAI's ethics because they agreed to work with the government after Anthropic was mistreated.
We're skeptical because it seems unlikely that those restrictions were such a third rail for the government that Anthropic got sanctioned for asking for them, but then the government immediately turned around and voluntarily gave those same restrictions to OpenAI. It's just tough to believe the government would concede so much ground on this deal so quickly. It's easier to believe that one company was willing to agree to a deal that the other company wasn't.
I’m skeptical because while I can totally believe that the deal presently contains restrictive language, I can totally believe that OpenAI will abandon its ethical principles to create wealth for the people who control it. Sort of like how they used to be a non-profit that was, allegedly, about creating an Open AI, and now they’re sabotaging the entire world’s supply of RAM to discourage competition to their closed, paid model.
Exactly this. Looks like we had the same conclusion. I really am inclined to believe that OpenAI given that its IPO'ing (soon?) would be absolutely decimated and employees would be leaving left and right if they proclaimed that, yes OpenAI is selling DOD autonomous killing machines.
But we all know how OpenAI is desperate for money, its the weakest link in the bubble quite frankly burning Billions and failed at Sora and there isn't much moat as well economically.
DOD giving them billions for a deal feels like a huge carrot on the stick and wink wink (let's have autonomous killing machines) with the skepticism that you, me or perhaps most people of the community would share.
I for what its worth, don't appreciate Anthropic in its whole (I do still remember perhaps the week old thread where everyone pushed on Anthropic for trying to see user data through API when they looked at the chinese models whole thing) but I give credit where its due and Enemy of my Enemy is my friend, and at the moment it seems that OpenAI might be more friendlier to DOD who wishes to create autonomous killing machine and mass surveillance systems which is like Sci-fi level dystopia rather than anthropic.
> One thing I hope we can agree on is that it would be good if the contract (or its relevant portions) is made public
Until they volunteer evidence that the deal is being misdescribed or that it won't be enforced, you can honestly say that you haven't seen any. What a convenient position!
> Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me.
You're conflating the Trump administration and their fascist tendencies with all US government. You want to work for fascists if you get paid well enough. You can admit that on here.
Friend, this reads like that situation where your paycheck prevents you from seeing clearly - I forget the exact quote. Sam doesn't play a straight game and neither does the administration - there are more than a few examples.
I agree with what you're saying, but given the egos involved in the current admin there's a practical interpretation:
1. Department of War broadly uses Anthropic for general purposes
2. Minority interests in the Department of War would like to apply it to mass surveillance and/or autonomous weapons
3. Anthropic disagrees and it escalates
4. Anthropic goes public criticizing the whole Department of War
5. Trump sees a political reason to make an example of Anthropic and bans them
6. The entirety of the Department of War now has no AI for anything
7. Department of War makes agreement with another organization
If there was only a minority interest at the department of war to develop mass surveillance / autonomous weapons or it was seen as an unproven use case / unknown value compared to the more proven value from the rest of their organizational use of it, it would make sense that they'd be 1) in practice willing to agree to compromise on this, 2) now unable to do so with Anthropic in specific because of the political kerfuffle.
I imagine they'd rather not compromise, but if none of the AI companies are going to offer them it then there's only so much you can do as a short term strategy.
That is pretty optimistic, i hope it is true, and just a miss-understanding.
But man, this blew up pretty fast for a miss-understanding in some negotiation. Something must have been said in those meetings to make anthropic go public.
These people are drunk on power. They have been running around dictating things to everyone so for someone to push back is pretty novel _and_ it will inspire (I hope) other people to push back.
Nah, they just respectfully said no to their face, which prompted him to make a big threat display and post another message with caps and exclamation signs on social media.
As an OpenAI employee, quitting wouldn't be a problem, as you have a much higher chance of being successful after quitting than anyone else. You could go to any VC and they would fund you.
This isn't even close to true. VCs aren't silly, and it's not the 2010-2015 days of free money any more. Having a big company on your resume is not enough to land your seed round. You need a product, traction, and real money revenue in most cases.
I mean, even if that's the case Facebook was hiring 100 Million$ just a few months ago though even poaching from OpenAI and I do think that these employees will always have an easier time getting a decent job offer from major companies in general as well. They may or may not be making the same money but, I do think that their morals have to be priced in as well.
Yes I agree, I don't know the current VC market so I am not gonna comment about that but my point was that the OpenAI employees would still be considerably well off even if they switch jobs.
My point was I don't think that Money (whether from VC or taking Jobs from other massive AI employers) should be as important issue to them atleast imo.
Yeah, agreed. I probably wasn't going to delete my OpenAI account (ala the link that is also being upvoted on HN), it just seemed like a hassle vs ceasing to use OpenAI. But when the staff at OpenAI employ mental gymnastics, selective hearing, willful ignorance, or plain ignorance to justify compliance with manmade horrors, I think it's probably important to vote with our feet.
> Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that.
to be clear i think your assessment of this situation is likely, but it could also be the case that pete and co likes sam more than they do dario.
I was trying to make no particular call on the actual reason aside from pointing at how obviously not the real story and false the statements made so far are. What a knot you have to tie yourself into to seek out an explanation where OpenAI has not made an ethical compromise to stay in the game here. I can stretch and think of some ways but they are far from the simplest explanation.
Lots of responses below give the likely real reasons most of which are probably true in part, but my opinion is it's the primary reason all who is in and who is out decisions are made by the trump administration - fealty. Skills, value brought, qualifications, etc. none of that matter above passing frequent loyalty tests, appealing to ego, bribes (sorry, i mean donations). Imagine thinking "hey, we'll work towards fully autonomous killbots because our adversaries will get them too but the tech isn't strong enough to allow them loose yet" or "yes you can use our ai for your panopticon surveillance, but just not on our own citizens because that is illegal" are lefty woke stances but here we are. Dario failed the loyalty test, as anyone rational would.
> while another agrees the the same terms that led to that
One of them needs to be investigated for corruption in the next few years. I’d have to assume anyone senior at OpenAI is negotiating indemnities for this.
> one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that
Never discount the possibility of Hegseth being petty and doing the OpenAI deal with the same terms to imply to the world that Anthropic is being unreasonable because another company signed a deal with him.
anthropic has nothing but a contract to enforce what is appropriate usage of their models. there are no safety rails, they disabled their standard safety systems
openai can deploy safety systems of their own making
from the military perspective this is preferable because they just use the tool -- if it works, it works, and if it doesn't, they'll use another one. with the anthropic model the military needs a legal opinion before they can use the tool, or they might misuse it by accident
this is also preferable if you think the government is untrustworthy. an untrustworthy government may not obey the contract, but they will have a hard time subverting safety systems that openai builds or trains into the model
- When has any AI company shipped "safeguards" that aren't trivially bypassed by mid bloggers? Just one example would be fine.
- The conventional wisdom is that OAI's R&D (including safety) is significantly behind Anthropic's.
- OpenAI is constantly starved for funding. They don't make money. They have every incentive to say yes to a deal that entrenches them into govt systems, regardless of the externalities
There's a critical mass of Trump Derangement Syndrome in SV, as this site exemplifies almost daily. The amount of vitriol and hatred spewed here is not healthy, nor are those who spew it. It kills rational debate, nuance and leads to foolish choices like someone cutting off their nose to spite their face as the old saying goes.
The president of the United States sets the tone that hated without reason or explanation is the way the system works now. Belligerence and power are the currency.
Speaking to people's better angels as if it has a chance of influencing Trumps behaviour is a fool's errand. It's not derangement. His word is worthless.
(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.
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?
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.
> 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.
Anthropic didn't want a kill switch, they wanted contractual guarantees (the kind you can go to courts for). This administration just doesn't want accountability, that's all.
It was OpenAI that said they prefer to rely on guardrails and less on contracts (the kind that stops the AI from working if you violate). The same OpenAI that was awarded the contract now.
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.
I think it's a bit more nuance than that. The government (however good or bad, just bear with me) already has oversight mechanisms and already has laws in place to prevent mass surveillance and policy about autonomous killing.
So the governments stance is "We already have laws and procedures in place, we don't want and can't have a CEO to also be part of those checks"
I don't think this outcome would have been any different under a normal blue government either. Definitely with less mud slinging though.
If you think a blue government would even consider threatening to falsely accuse a company of being a supply-chain threat in order to gain leverage in a contract negotiation, you're insane. There's nothing remotely normal about this, it's not something you see in any western democracy
Government's free to not like the terms and go with another provider. That's whatever.
Government's not free to say, "We'll blow up your business with a false accusation if you don't give us the terms we want (and then use defence production act to commandeer the product anyway)". How much more blatantly authoritarian does it get than that?
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.
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]
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.
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!
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.
Did Sam Altman say that he wouldn't allow ChatGPT to be used for fully autonomous weapons? (Not quite the same as "human responsibility for use of force".)
I don't want to overanalyze things but I also noticed his statement didn't say "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance." It said something that kind of gestured towards that, but it didn't quite come out and say it. It says "The DoW agrees with these principles, and we put them in our agreement." Could the principles have been outlined in a nonbinding preamble, or been a statement of the DoW's current intentions rather than binding their future behavior? You should be very suspicious when a corporate person says something vague that somewhat implies what you want to hear - if they could have told you explicitly what you wanted to hear, they would have.
But anyway, it doesn't matter. You said you don't think it should be used for autonomous weapons. I'd be willing to bet you 10:1 that you'll never find altman saying anything like "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons", now or any point in the future.
> you'll never find altman saying anything like "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons"
To be fair, Anthropic didn't say that either. Merely that autonomous weapons without a HITL aren't currently within Claude's capabilities; it isn't a moral stance so much as a pragmatic one. (The domestic surveillance point, on the other hand, is an ethical stance.)
They specifically said they never agreed to let the DoD use anthropic for fully autonomous weapons. They said "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"
Their rational was pragmatic. But they specifically said that they didn't agree to let the DoD create fully automatic weapons using their technology. I'll bet 10:1 you won't ever hear Sam Altman say that. He doesn't even imply it today.
Not sure how that's relevant. I never said Dario was taking an ethical stand. I said they did not agree for Claude to be used for fully autonomous weapons. Now, compare that to OpenAI, whose agreement does allow fully autonomous weapons.
> My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons,
In that case, what on earth just happened?
The government was so intent on amending the Anthropic deal to allow 'all lawful use', at the government's sole discretion, that it is now pretty much trying to destroy Anthropic in retaliation for refusing this. Now, almost immediately, the government has entered into a deal with OpenAI that apparently disallows the two use cases that were the main sticking points for Anthropic.
Do you not see something very, very wrong with this picture?
At the very least, OpenAI is clearly signaling to the government that it can steamroll OpenAI on these issues whenever it wants to. Or do you believe OpenAI will stand firm, even having seen what happened to Anthropic (and immediately moved in to profit from it)?
> and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue competing on the basis of differing services and not differing scruples)
If OpenAI leadership sincerely wanted this, they just squandered the best chance they could ever have had to make it happen! Actual solidarity with Anthropic could have had a huge impact.
Am I wrong to think that such an agreement is basically meaningless? OpenAI gets to say there are limits, the government gets to do whatever it wants, and OpenAI will be very happy not to know about it.
Bingo. You don’t have to read much into this if you remember how the DoD uses the word trust. In their world, a "trusted" system is one that has the power to break your security if it goes wrong. So when they say "unrestricted use," the likely meaning isn’t just fewer guardrails it’s that the vendor doesn’t get to monitor or audit how the system is being used. In other words, the government isn’t handing a private company visibility into sensitive operations.
"AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons". The statement from OpenAI virtually guarantees that the intention is to use it for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. If this wasn't the intention them the qualifier "domestic" wouldn't be used, and they would be talking about "human in the loop" control of autonomous weapons, not "human responsibility" which just means there's someone willing to stand up and say, "yep I take responsibility for the autonomous weapon systems actions", which lets be honest is the thinnest of thin safety guarantees.
Assuming this is real: Why do you think anthropic was put on what is essentially an "enemy of the state" list and openai didn't?
The two things anthropic refused to do is mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, so why do _you_ think openai refused and still did not get placed on the exact same list.
It's fine to say "I'm not going to resign. I didn't even sign that letter", but thinking that openai can get away with not developing autonomous weapons or mass surveillance is naive at the very best.
My understanding is that OpenAI's deal, and the deal others are signing, implicitly prevents the use of LLMs for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons because today one care argue those aren't legal and the deal is a blanket for allowing all lawful use.
Today it can't be used for mass surveillance, but the executive branch has all the authority it needs to later deem that lawful if it wishes to, the Patriot Act and others see to that.
Anthropic was making the limits contractually explicit, meaning the executive branch could change the line of lawfulness and still couldn't use Anthropic models for mass surveillance. That is where they got into a fight and that is where OpenAI and others can claim today that they still got the same agreement Anthropic wanted.
Life is more than a paycheck. We should raise the bar a little IMO. Turning down money for good reasons is not something extreme we should only expect from saints.
Of course. Doesn't change the reality that this is why someone would accept a justification that a neutral would easily see as plainly dishonest. Anyway, this is why we need unions
Who still does business with open ai and why? They are usually 5th or sixth in the benchmarks bracketed below and above by models that cost less. This has been the case for quite some time. Glm is out for us government purposes I'd imagine, but if google agrees to the same terms I don't see why the us government would use open ai anyway. If google disagrees it would be rather confusing given the other invasions of privacy they have facilitated, but if they do then using open ai would make sense as all that would be left is grok...
Imo the more ethical thing is obstructionism. Twitter's takeover showed it's pretty easy to find True Believer sycophants to hire. Better to play the part while secretly finding ways to sabotage.
Why do you suppose OpenAI's deal led to a contract, while Anthropic's deal (ostensibly containing identical terms) gets it not only booted but declared a supply chain risk?
"domestic" "mass" surveillance, two words that can be stretched so thin they basically invalidate the whole term. Mass surveillance on other countries? Guess that's fine. Surveillance on just a couple of cities that happen to be resisting the regime? Well, it's not _mass_ surveillance, just a couple of cities!
So, can you please draw the line when you will quit?
- If OpenAI deal allows domestic mass surveillance
- If OpenAI allows the development of autonomous weapons
- OpenAI no longer asks for the same terms for other AI companies
Correct?
If so, then if I take your words at face value:
- By your reading non-domestic mass surveillance is fine
- The development of AI based weapons is fine as long as there is one human element in there, even if it could be disabled and then the weapon would work without humans involved
- The day that OpenAI asks for the same terms for other AI companies and if those terms are not granted then that's also fine, because after all, they did ask.
I have become extremely skeptical when seeing people whose livelihood depends on a particular legal entity come out with precise wording around what does and does not constitute their red line but I find it fascinating nonetheless so if you could humor me and clarify I'd be most obliged.
Thank you for responding. Everyone wants to think they will “do the right thing” when their own personal Rubicon is challenged. In practice, so many factors are at play, not least of which are the other people you may be responsible for. The calculus of balancing those differing imperatives is only straightforward for those that have never faced this squarely. I’ve been marched out of jobs twice for standing up for what I believed to be right at the time. Am still literally blacklisted (much to the surprise of various recruiters) at a major bank here 8 years after the fact. I can’t imagine that the threat of being blacklisted from a whole raft of companies contracting with a known vindictive regime would make the decision easier.
The founders are all on a first name basis. I’m surprised no one has noted that Anthropic and OpenAI winning together by giving the world two different choices, just like the US does in its political landscape. In this circumstance, OpenAI wins the local market for its government and aligned entities (while having the free consumer by a matter of cost dynamic for that ideal customer profile which is vary broad and similar to Google’s search audience where most their revenue still depends), while Anthropic is provided the global market and prosumer market where people can afford choice by paying for it.
You should quit because the only reasonable thing for your leadership to have done is to refuse to sign any agreement with DoW whatsoever while it's attempting to strongarm Anthropic in this fashion.
It doesn't even matter if OpenAI is offered the same terms that Anthropic refused. It's absurd to accept them and do business with the Pentagon in that situation.
If you take the government at its word, it's killing Anthropic because Anthropic wanted to assert the ability to draw _some_ sort of redline. If OpenAI's position is "well sucks to be them", there's nothing stopping Hegseth from doing the same to OpenAI.
It doesn't matter at all if OpenAI gets the deal at the same redline Anthropic was trying to assert. If at the end of this the government has succeeded in cutting Anthropic off from the economy, what's next for OpenAI? What happens next time when OpenAI tries to assert some sort of redline?
What's the point of any talk of "AI Safety" if you sign on to a regime where Hegseth (of all people) can just demand the keys and you hand them right over?
#1 weekend HN is not a sane place. #2 emotions are high. #3 for what it’s worth @tedsanders I understand where you’re coming from and I believe you’re making the right choice by staying or at least waiting to make a decision. Don’t let #1 and #2 hurt you emotionally or force you to make a rash decision you later regret.
Edit: I don’t work at OpenAI or in any AI business and my neck is on the chopping block if AI succeeds… like a lot of us. Don’t vilify this guy trying to do what’s right for him given the information he has.
> My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons
And you believe the US government, let alone the current one will respect that? Why? Is it naïveté or do you support the current regime?
> If it turns out that the deal is being misdescribed or that it won't be enforced, I can see why I should quit.
So your logic is your company is selling harmful technology to a bunch of known liars who are threatening to invade democratic countries, but because they haven’t lied yet in this case (for lack of opportunity), you’ll wait until the harm is done and then maybe quit?
I’ll go out on a limb and say you won’t. You seem to be trying really hard to justify to yourself what’s happening so you can sleep at night.
Know that when things go wrong (not if, when), the blood will be on your hands too.
His point reeks of cope. But making a large amount of money would make anyone dumb, deaf, and blind. Also, I give a little leeway to people who are employees without executive decision-making power, as they do stand to have a lot to lose in situations like this.
It's probably how they are coping with the cognitive dissonance. I certainly feel for them, I don't know that I could easily walk away from a big pay package either without backup options when I have family to support and I'm not near retirement.
Ted, what do you think of your CEO’s statement: “the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.”
The evidence seems to overwhelmingly point in the opposite direction.
This seems like the kind of foolishness it takes a lot of money to believe. Anthropic blew up their contract with the Pentagon over concerns on lethal autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. OpenAI rushes in to do what Anthropic wouldn't.
If you think that means your company isn't going to be involved in lethal autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance... I don't really know what to tell you. I doubt you really believe that. Obviously you will be involved in that and you are effectively working on those projects now.
Aside from that unlikely read, this deal was still used as a pressure point on Anthropic, there's absolutely no way OpenAI was not used as a stick to hit with during negotiations.
Anthropic is deemed a betrayer and a supply chain risk for actually enforcing their principles.
OpenAI agrees to be put in the same position as Anthropic.
It seems like you must actually somehow believe that history will repeat itself, Hegseth will deem OpenAI a supply chain risk too, then move to Grok or something?
There's surely no way that's actually what you believe...
Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming [1] does not play a role in your thinking:
I don't mean this in any way rude and I apologize if this comes accross as such but believing it won't be used in exactly this way is just naive. History has taught us this lesson again and again and again.
What people don't understand is that domestic surveillance by the government doesn't happen and isn't needed. They know it's illegal and unpopular and for over two decades they have a loophole. Since the Bush administration it's been arranged for private contractors to do the domestic surveillance on the government's behalf. Entire industries have been built around creating "business records" for no other purpose than to sell them to the government to support domestic surveillance. This is entirely legal and why the DoW has been able to get away with saying things like "domestic surveillance is illegal, we don't do that" for over two decades while simultaneously throwing a shit fit about needing "all legal uses" if their access to domestic surveillance is threatened.
There's a big difference between "the government won't use our tools for domestic surveillance" (DoW/DoD/OpenAI/etc) and "we won't allow anyone to use our tools to support domestic surveillance by the government" (Anthropic)
Hegseth and the current Trump admin are completely incompetent in execution of just about everything but competent administrations (of both parties) have been playing this game for a long time and it's already a lost cause.
Listen, if the Government using it for legit and safe use cases wasn’t an issue, then they wouldn’t have complained about Anthropic’s language. Sam is just looking the other way and pretending for you employees.
Or Sam bribed the government to do this, which is also entirely possible.
I don't know you, so maybe you're actually for real and speaking on good faith here but honestly this and your other responses in this thread read exactly like "...salary depends on not understanding"
Assuming this isn't a troll and you really think this, you should at least have the cojones to admit you're taking the blood money instead of trying to pretzel the truth so hard that you just look like a moron instead.
For the record I don’t care if you quit or not. Cash rules after all… However, you are incredibly naive if you think the current admin will follow through on those terms.
I have a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you if you believe this.
Standing up for whats right often is not easy and involves hard choices and consequences, your leader has shown you and the world that he is not to be trusted.
I can't tell you what to do but I hope you make the right decision.
Looks to me like you have decided that you are being paid to shut up and take the word of the most thoroughly dishonest and corrupt US government we've yet seen. Why on God's slowly-browning green earth do you trust that Altman got the deal Anthropic was trying for?
lol, naive as hell. why would your company's agreement be the same as the one who just refused the _same_ agreement? Even my question doesn't even make sense, this is a contradiction, therefore your statement must be false. There, it's proven
Can you at least stop lying to yourself? Given what they did with Anthropic for not supporting domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons...
> My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons
Your understanding is entirely wrong. At least stop lying to yourself and admit that you are entirely fine with working on evil things if you are paid enough.
I know the money is good, but if I were you (or any OpenAI employee), I'd move over to Google or Anthropic posthaste.
Is it really worth the long-term risk being associated with Sam Altman when the other firms would willingly take you and probably give you a pay bump to boot?
It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would want to associate themselves with Altman. He is universally distrusted. No one believes anything he says. It's insane to work with a person who PG, Ilya, Murati, Musk have all designated a liar and just general creep.
Defending him or the firms actions instantly makes you look terrible, like you'll gladly take the "Elites vs UBI recipients" his vision propagates.
You work for a company that’s part of the Trump, Ellison, Kutchner orbit of corruption.
Y’all are developing amazing technology. But accept reality and drop whatever sense of moral righteousness you’re carrying here. Not because some asshole on the internet says so, but for your own mental health.
there is a recent post about how one of the top OpenAI exec has given 25 million$ to a Trump PAC before publicly supporting Anthropic/signing this deal.
One got characterized as supply chain risk and so much for OpenAI to get the same.
And even that being said, I can be wrong but if I remember, OpenAI and every other company had basically accepted all uses and it was only Anthropic which said no to these two demands.
And I think that this whole scenario became public because Anthropic denied, I do think that the deal could've been done sneakily if Anthropic wanted.
So now OpenAI taking the deal doesn't help with the fact that to me, it looks like they can always walk back and all the optics are horrendous to me for OpenAI so I am curious what you think.
The thing which I am thinking OTOH is why would OpenAI come and say, hey guys yea we are gonna feed autonomous killing machines. Of course they are gonna try to keep it a secret right before their IPO and you are an employee and you mention walking out of openAI but with the current optics, it seems that you/other employees of OpenAI are also more willing to work because evidence isn't out here but to me, as others have pointed out, it looks like slowly boiling the water.
OpenAI gets to have the cake and eat it too but I don't think that there's free lunch. I simply don't understand why DOD would make such a high mess about Anthropic terms being outrageous and then sign the same deal with same terms with OpenAI unless there's a catch. Only time will tell though how wrong or right I am though.
If I may ask, how transparent is OpenAI from an employees perspective? Just out of curiosity but will you as a employee get informed of if OpenAI's top leadership (Sam?) decided that the deal gets changed and DOD gets to have Autonomous killing machine. Would you as an employee or us as the general public get information about it if the deal is done through secret back doors. Snowden did show that a lot of secret court deals were made not available to public until he whistleblowed but not all things get whistleblowed though, so I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
Your response is a perfect encapsulation of "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I think its wrong for someone to ask someone to resign but acting that there is no issue here is debating in bad faith.
The comment perfectly exemplifies the kind of person that would work at OpenAI. Government AI drones could be executing citizens in the streets but they’d still find some sort of cope why it’s not a problem. They’ll keep moving the goalposts as long as the money keeps coming.
OpenAI employees put knives on their own necks to demand Altman to get back and be their boss [1], not too long ago, right? Altman wiggles his tongues and makes them a solid paycheck. "We will not be divided," unless the water boils slow enough. Wait for a few months, he will renegotiate the terms with DoD, just like his move to turn OpenAI into a for-profit.
It's comforting to know that some of the brightest minds of our generation are going to work at OpenAI, then quitting a few months later horrified, only to post a short mysterious tweet warning everyone of the dangers ahead. So much for alignment and serving humanity.
And they will continue to work for Google / Meta et al to use novel AI techniques to sell us more and better ads, only to quit a few years later to do more soul searching where everything went wrong /s
They've been deleted. For obvious reasons. You want to take a stand but you don't want to stop working for the people who do the things you don't want to do. It's all so very american. I'll put my name on but if it doesn't work remove my name so I don't get into trouble ok? Home of the brave.
> Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.
But they did.
"Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement."
The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that. In both cases, the two parties can claim to agree on the principles, but when push comes to shove, who decides on whether the principles are violated differs.
> The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that.
It was pretty clear from Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements that they didn’t disagree on the two exclusions, but on who would be the arbiter on those. And Sam’s wording all but confirms that OpenAI’s agreement defers to DoD policies and laws (which a defense contract cannot prescribe), and effectively only pays lip service to the two exclusions.
who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems.
Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t do.
And the US government should have precisely none of that, regardless of whether they’re red or blue.
> Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t do.
I don't think that's the case. Amodei is worried that AI is extraordinarily capable, and our current system of checks and balances is not adequate yet to set the proper constraints so the law is correctly enforced. Here's an excerpt from his statement [1]:
> Powerful AI makes it possible to assemble this scattered, individually innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person’s life—automatically and at massive scale.
Let's do this thought exercise: how long would it take you, using Claude Code, to write some code to crawl the internet and find all the postings of the HN user nandomrumber under all their names on various social media, and create a profile with the top 10 ways that user can be legally harassed? Of course, Claude would refuse to do this, because of its guardrails, but what if Claude didn't refuse?
And that’s where the authoritarian in you is shining through.
You see, Obama droned more combatants than anyone else before or after him but always followed a legal paper trail and following the book (except perhaps in some cases, search for Anwar al-Awlaki).
One can argue whether the rules and laws (secret courts, proceedings, asymmetries in court processes that severely compress civil liberties… to the point they might violate other constitutional rights) are legitimate, but he operated within the limits of the law.
You folks just blurt “me ne frego” like a random Mussolini and think you’re being patriotic.
> Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t do.
> And the US government should have precisely none of that, regardless of whether they’re red or blue.
This is a pretty hot take. "You can't break the law and kill people or do mass surveillance with our technology." fuck that, the government should break whatever laws and kill whoever they please
I hope you A: aren't a U.S. citizen, and B: don't vote.
If I'm selling widgets to the government and come to find out they are using those widgets unconstitutionally and to violate my neighbors rights you can be damn sure I'm going to stop selling the gov my widgets. Amodei said that Anthropic was willing to step away if they and the government couldn't come to terms, and instead of the government acting like adults and letting them they decided to double down on being the dumbest people in the room and act like toddlers and throw a massive fit about the whole thing.
> It was pretty clear from Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements that they didn’t disagree on the two exclusions, but on who would be the arbiter on those.
No. Altman said human responsibility. Anthropic said human in the loop.
> And Sam’s wording all but confirms that OpenAI’s agreement defers to DoD policies and laws (which a defense contract cannot prescribe), and effectively only pays lip service to the two exclusions.
I don’t understand your first comment. At that point, Altman’s tweet didn’t exist yet, and is immaterial to the reading of Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements.
To your second comment, it was clear enough to me to be the most plausible reading of the situation by far.
We state what we think the situation is all the time, without explicitly writing “I think the situation is…”.
Seems Anthropic did not understand the questions they were asked. From the WaPo:
>A defense official said the Pentagon’s technology chief whittled the debate down to a life-and-death nuclear scenario at a meeting last month: If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?
>It’s the kind of situation where technological might and speed could be critical to detection and counterstrike, with the time to make a decision measured in minutes and seconds. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei’s answer rankled the Pentagon, according to the official, who characterized the CEO’s reply as: You could call us and we’d work it out.
>An Anthropic spokesperson denied Amodei gave that response, calling the account “patently false,” and saying the company has agreed to allow Claude to be used for missile defense. But officials have cited this and another incident involving Claude’s use in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as flashpoints in a spiraling standoff between the company and the Pentagon in recent days. The meeting was previously reported by Semafor.
I have a hunch that Anthropic interpreted this question to be on the dimension of authority, when the Pentagon was very likely asking about capability, and they then followed up to clarify that for missile defense they would, I guess, allow an exception. I get the (at times overwhelming) skepticism that people have about these tools and this administration but this is not a reasonable position to hold, even if Anthropic held it accidentally because they initially misunderstood what they were being asked.
"It’s the kind of situation where technological might and speed could be critical to detection and counterstrike"
Missile detection and decision to make a (nuclear) counterstrike are 2 different things to me but apparently the department of war wants both, so it seems not "just" about missile detection.
Is there any reason at all to believe the account of the unnamed "defence official"? Whatever your position on this administration, you know that it lies like the rest of us breathe. With a denial from the other side and a lack of any actual evidence, why should I give it non-negligible credence?
It is bizarre. I like how, "past performance predicts future performance" is supposed to apply to founders and companies but completely disregarded for a two term president and admin, as if we have no idea how they will operate in the future.
Anthropic, with its current war chest, is supposedly employeeing lawyers that are misunderstanding the Department of War? This is considered to be the likelier of possibilities, am I understanding this correctly?
This is not what I said, and not what the WaPo quoted. We're talking about the CEO, who is shall we say unfamiliar with war making, getting asked a hypothetical about how the product he sells would perform in a first strike scenario, and he reportedly gives what is an entirely legalese answer. Yes, I consider this a likely possibility. It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.
> It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.
I think you're being highly speculative. The part you quoted from the WaPo doesn't even state the defense official was complaining about about any "legalese" reponse, that seems like a projection on your part. The only info you gave in your comment about what Dario said is only a defense official's paraphrasing. It seems a simply case of Dario refusing to give a blank check in all scenerios whereas the defense official, for maximum impact, chose to portray "not having a blank check" as "having to call Anthropic" in every case
where "help" is given by an LLM. The appearance of "misunderstanding" you're seeing in the media is not about the parties' misunderstanding of what the other side wants, it's simply a fallout from each side fighting to control the narrative.
That's a copout and you know it. You're focusing on the 'unnamed' part; I'm focusing on the 'representative of an administration that lies constantly and brazenly' part.
Noted Rationalist responds to a question about a first strike scenario with "I need to think about it" instead of "of course we'd launch the missiles, are you kidding?" and everyone here seems to think this is somehow unbelievable.
You're still dancing around the point. Person A said X; person B said not X; we have no concrete evidence either way. Person A is an anonymous representative of a group that has no norms against dishonesty, an obvious motive to falsely claim X, and a track record of telling frequent, shameless lies. X doesn't need to be 'unbelievable' for me to ask, again, what positive reason do you have for believing it?
Why the fuck would you use an LLM to determine whether a nuclear missile was hurtling towards you? The question makes no sense, and so you get a nonsensical answer.
Seems not unlikely that Anthropic was manipulated into this position for purposes of invalidating their contract.
> If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?
Are you serious? This is the kind of thing you'd ask a clarifying question on and get information back immediately. Further, the huge overreaction from Hegseth shows this is a fundamental disagreement.
The flip side of "Hegseth is an unqualified drunk", a position which I've always held and still maintain, is that he very well might crash out over nothing instead of asking clarifying questions or suggesting obvious compromises. This is the same guy who recalled the entire general staff to yell at them about the warrior mindset. Not an excuse for any of this, but I do think the precise nature of the badness matters.
> could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?
What a joke. I suggest folks read up on the very poor performance of US ICBM interceptor systems. They're barely a coin flip, in ideal conditions. How is Claude going to help with that? Push the launch interceptor button faster? Maybe Claude can help design a better system, but it's not turning our existing poor systems into super capable systems by simply adding AI.
I'm sure it's a matter of interpretation. Anthropic thinks the DoW's demands will lead to mass surveillance and auto-kill bots. The DoW probably disagrees with that interpretation, and all OpenAI needs to do is agree with the DoW.
My bet is that what the DoW wants is pretty clearly tied to mass surveillance and kill-bots. Altman is a snake.
Why do you choose to call it the "DoW"? Its official name is the Department of Defense, it was titled that way by Congress and only Congress can change it. What is your motivation in using a term that the current administration has started to use? Do you also use the Gulf of America when referrring to the body of water that defines the southern edge of the USA?
Don't you think it is more to-the-point to call it what it is and what the people running it with, i'll bet everything i have, absolute immunity, are doing and intend to do with it?
It is "honest" in the historical sense, certainly.
But the executive-order driven name change just another bit of illegal/extra-legal/paralegal behavior by the administration that, every time we just nod along, eats away at the constitutional structure of our government. So don't go along with it.
Personally, as someone coming from a region that has suffered many times over by the actions of this so called "Ministry of Defense," I feel like "Department of War" is a more accurate and honest term.
As I've noted multiple times here on HN, I don't disagree with this.
But the question is not about whether it is a more accurate and honest term. It is about people complying in advance with the illegal/extra-legal renaming of a federal agency by a president who does not have the right or authority to do so.
If we were talking about Congress voting to rename the DoD as the DoW, I'd have nothing to say on the matter that differed from your observation.
It's the term used by Sam Altman in the announcement. Maybe aim your anger there, to someone knowingly helping them in their attempt to turn the department into one of aggression.
No, the Department of War is the former name of the Department of the Army and nothing else. DoD is a new creation that includes the Army, historic Department of the Navy, and the other, post-WW2, new services.
The president has no authority to do this. Federal departments and agencies are named by Congress, and even the Republicans in Congress have shown no interest in formalizing this.
Sure, no such law that I know of. But there's also no law that suggests that anybody else needs to refer to the Department of Defense using terms that the president and his minions just made up out of thin air. I'm also arguing that going along with them, by itself, is harmful to a democratic government.
Exactly this! Just like the Gulf of Mexico is still called the Gulf of Mexico, if we just ignore his ramblings and continue calling the department of defense, we undermine his whole point. If we fall for all their crap and just accept it, then we loose in the end. Any resistance to a Fascist government is good resistance. Anything that makes their life's a little shittier is good. Better that they go around having tantrums about how they renamed it but no one is paying attention.
Anthropic has safeguards baked in the model, this is the only way to make sur it's harder for the DOJ to misuse it. A pinky swear from the DoD means nothing
If your starting position is already that Sam Altman lies about everything that doesn't fit your preconceived positions, that doesn't seem like a very useful meaningful position to update.
I think it is like a loyalty test to an authority above the law (executive immunity) in order to do business. “If we tell you to do so, you may do something you thought was right or wrong.” It is like an induction into a faction and the way the decisions could be made. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything about “in practice in the future”, just that the cybernetic override is there tacitly. If the authority thinks they can get away with something, they will provide protection for consequences too. Some people more equal than others when it comes to justice for all, etc. There are probably alternative styles for group decision making…
> I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this
Well some may voluntarily leave, some will be actively poached by Anthropic perhaps and some I suppose will stay in their jobs because leaving isn't an easy decision to make.
> some I suppose will stay in their jobs because leaving isn't an easy decision to make.
Anyone who chooses to stay shouldn’t have signed the letter. What’s the point of doing it if you’re not going to follow through? If you signed the letter and don’t leave after the demands aren’t met, you’re a liar and a coward and are actively harming every signatory of every future letter.
I think the problem might actually be with reenforcing the red lines. The events of the last few weeks and this new deal only make sense if Anthropic was trying to find out how Palantir and the Pentagon had circumvented their restrictions to attempt to reenforce those restrictions like company actually concerned about the misuse of their product. OpenAI most likely came in with assurances that they wouldn't attempt to reinforce their restrictions.
Yes, what is implied in this episode is that all big companies that do AI development or provide computing for Ai are now signing for these very shady uses of their technologies.
>Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.
Have we been watching the same Trump admin for the last year? That sound exactly like something the government would do: pointlessly throw a fit and end up signing a worse deal after blowing up all political capital.
While that thought crossed my mind, someone in a sub thread of parent comment made a point: OpenAI made a statement about how "We insisted this be not be used in those ways and DoD totally says they won't". Which sounds to me like they ceded any hard terms oand conditions and are letting the DoD use it in "any lawful means" which is what Anthropic didn't stand for.
Another plausible explanation that is familiar to a lot of people in other countries is banal corruption. Kick out one competitor on bogus allegations, then on the next day invite another one… what else that could be?
It was just a ruse to figure out who to fire. Either resign on your own terms or get fired. Companies and government only have one loyalty, to themselves,
For all I know Sam Altman orchestrated this via well timed donations and whatever the hell contacts he has in government, Trump specifically seems to have taken the man
So using Anthropic’s own words to cover a power play or pulling relationships to see if they could get anthropic to balk at it.
Money buddy, they never cared. They didn’t care when they went back on their safety and guidance boards, they didn’t care when they tried to push Altman out, and these employees won’t care when the first AI nuke launches. Money, money, money so they don’t think about it later. It’s the exact same reason Facebook employees have given us the other side of surveillance hell.
I would not discount how much of a factor, irrational human emotions play in negotiations.
Dario is arrogant and pompous so probably wound Hegseth up the wrong way. Sam is much more charming and amenable so more able to get his way despite similar terms.
Its about network effect - The biggest issue is that ChatGPT is a household name like Google at this point. Everyone and their grandma knows it or are learning about it, while Claude is very well known in the tech circles. Getting tech people to switch is relativity easy (ignoring Enterprise contracts), but getting everyone else to switch is going to be very slow.
Honestly, the best thing to happen is that someone comes up with a new UI (think claw...like) that everyone starts using instead. A very cute, well integrated system that just works for everyone, has free tier, and has something that the others dont have.
>> All of us can act too. Stop using the OpenAI models. Stop using the app. Design in other models no matter what. Screw these guys.
> Do you expect that to work?
Many years ago Tim O'Reilly (of book publishing fame) knew Apple would one day would become really big even though they were a small, niche player in the "PC" space as the time (2000s). How did he know that? By seeing what the 'alpha geeks' were doing: the folks that not just used tech, but were working at companies that were inventing the future. They were the ones where friends and families asked for advice. And the alpha geeks (at the time) were switch to MacOS X and telling their friends and family about it.
There's a good chance that if you're on HN, you're the person in your non-techies social group that many others ask for advice. You can potentially sway many people by your example and your advice.
Nah. It's possible that the agreement still supports the required terms.
There is more to this story behind the scenes. The government wanted to show power and control over our companies and industries. They didn’t need those terms for any specific utility, they wanted to fight “woke” business that stood up to them.
Supposedly OpenAI had the same terms as Anthropic (according to SamA). Maybe they offered it cheaper and that’s why they agreed. Maybe it’s all the lobbying money from OpenAI that let the government look the other way. Maybe it’s all the PR announcements SamA and Trump do together.
"we put them into our agreement." is strange framing is Altman's tweet. Makes me think the agreement does mention the principles, but doesn't state them as binding rules DoD must follow.
I prescribe literally zero truth value to what Sam says. He will say whatever he needs to get ahead. It is honestly irritating to me that you and many others here seem to implicitly assume his messages are correlated with truth, doing his social engineering work for him, as if his word should adjust your priors even slightly.
I don't necessarily think he's lying, but there's so much obvious incentive for him to lie here (if only because his employees can save face).
He doesn't even need to be lying, the comment is vague and contains enough loopholes that it could be true yet meaningless. I explained some that I noticed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47190163
And fired from YC for lying. And lied to investors about how many Loopt employees he had. And lied about having 100x the actual number of users when he sold it. And lied to employees about the Microsoft deal. And lied to his safety team.
It's this simple: Trump is a criminal. Larry Ellison is his pal. Sam Altman has a huge deal for cloud services from Oracle. Trump is using the DoD budget to backstop Ellison's business.
This is pretty much on the right take on it, although it's much more than that. It's very clear at this point, especially the first conclusion, but people insist in looking to the other side.
Attempting to kneecap the breakout front runner of the major American AI companies to ensure the shittier, politically compliant one wins in the short term? Gee I wonder.
For better or worse, outright nationalization of military related companies is common on a global scale. I plan to do my best to ensure this is a domestic catastrophe, and I hope we'll succeed, but I don't expect other countries to care much about varying levels of regime alignment between two billionaire American defense contractors.
Maybe Sam Altman said nicer things about Donald Trump. Maybe he promised that he would not revoke their API keys when Hegseth directs the military to seize ballots. Maybe he's jockeying for position to take over the government when AGI hits.
Ultimately, I don't know how much the specific reasons matter. Pete Hegseth must be removed from office, OpenAI must be destroyed for their betrayal of the US public, that's all there is to it.
> Trump’s son in law (Kushner) has most of his net worth wrapped up in OpenAI.
If true (too lazy to check but I honestly take your word for it), this should probably be bigger news. Not that the outright corruption when it comes to the highest position in the US Government constitutes news anymore, but because it puts the Government’s fight against Anthropic (and supposedly other potential OpenAI competitors) in a new light.
My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAI
But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this?
Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provider?
Other folks have claimed that Anthropic planned to burn the contentious redlines into Claude's constitution.
Update: I have cancelled my subscriptions until OpenAI clarifies the situation. From an alignment perspective Anthropic's stand seems like the correct long-term approach. And at least some AI researchers appear to agree.
As people have repeatedly mentioned, if the War Department was unhappy with Anthropic's terms, they could have refused to sign the contract. But they didn't: they were fine with it for over a year. And if they changed their mind, they could've ended the contract and both sides could've walked away. Anthropic said that would've been fine. But that's not what happened either: they threatened Anthropic with both SCR designation and a DPA takeover if Anthropic didn't agree to unilateral renegotiation of terms that the War Department had already agreed were fine.
It's absurd, and doubly so if OAI's deal includes the same or even similar redlines to what Anthropic had.
it seems like oai deal does include the same red lines, plus some more, and the ability for oai to deploy safety systems to limit the use cases of the model via technical means
this seems strictly better than what anthropic had. anthropic has ruined their relationship with the US govt, giving oai a good negotiating hand
the oai folks are good at making deals, just look at all the complex funding arrangements they have
"OAI wins by playing the government's game" is such a catastrophically bad take.
> anthropic has ruined their relationship with the US govt, giving oai a good negotiating hand
You want to try defending this ridiculous statement a bit more thoroughly?
For a start, the designation by the government of a company as a supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. It may well be found to be arbitrary and capricious once the courts look at it. Business have rights too.
For another, why do you think OAI was able to make what looks like the same deal? Anthropic was willing to say yes to anything lawful up to their red lines, and it was still a no. Why turn around and give OAI exactly the same thing, unless it's not really what it looks like?
And Altman is always looking for the next buck.
All these supposedly impressive complex funding arrangements have OAI on the hook to firms like Oracle in the hundreds of billions of dollars. No indication at all how this unprofitable business will become a trillion dollar juggernaut.
you're right, supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. it's spite after talks have ended. it indicates a ruined relationship
the oai deal is similar, but it includes technical safeguards. I think anthropic would have wanted the oai deal
the deal was not only successful because the govt is rebounding. the miltary prefers boundaries to be technical, not contractual
they can try using it, and trust that it will only operate within its designed limits, where the output is reliable
technical barriers to misuse help prevent both accidental and bad-faith misuse. a contract allows both kinds of misuse, enforced only by lawsuits. filing in court to dispute the terms is not always allowed
> supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. it's spite after talks have ended.
No. It's unlawful abuse of power.
> the miltary prefers boundaries to be technical, not contractual
That's nice for the military. Meanwhile, Anthropic has the right to refuse the use of its IP without being subject to punishment by the government.
You seem to me to be irretrievably "deal-brained", and not at all concerned about the obvious abuse of power by the government here, or the constant display of bad faith by gov't officials.
Adding more to this, IIRC US Govt threatened to invoke laws which have never been used against an American company in the entire history of US over two conditions that were:
1. No global surveillance on citizens
2. No autonomous killing machines (essentially)
That was it, Anthropic was fine with everything else but they couldn't (in their conscience?) agree to these two things and just these two very reasonable demands caused the govt. to spiral so bad.
I think Altman probably rationalised it to himself by thinking that if he doesn’t do it, Musk/xAI will, and they give zero fucks about safety. So maybe he told himself that it’s better if OpenAI does it.
Unless you're using an enterprise plan or pay per token, you're not hurting their business at all by cancelling. The consumer plans are heavily subsidised.
It will hurt in future funding rounds if their subscriber metric is stalling or going backwards, regardless of how many of those subscriptions are profitable.
Does it matter? These AI companies need to be able to prove that users are willing to pay at all, even if they're not paying a profitable amount of money. If investors see that they're dumping money into something that's not selling, why continue to do so?
AI companies seem to be growth companies whose whole point seems to be that they are okay with extreme amounts of losses/lack of profitability so long as they grow a lot.
If you back down from using Chatgpt, you throw a wrench in their growth numbers.
I would consider training data could have important info as well and to be honest, with their circular financing, Nvidia <-> openAI with GPU's being the main cost (and given that OpenAI isn't facing the Ram crisis heck it created the ram crisis by pre-ordering 20%) and recent deals, money isn't an issue to them for some time now. Growth is.
You are also forgetting that OpenAI is planning to add ads in which case you would be the product, its better not to discourage anyone who wishes to cancel perhaps.
Other commentators have made some good points as well and I used to think the same thing as you but I do think that cancelling might make the most sense.
That or if you want to cause maximum damage, trying to burn the most tokens that you physically can asking random things to burn OpenAI's money but remember that the model still takes energy requirements so you'd be wasting energy for something quite pointless.
There is value tied to free users, but also, not sure I want my work and data in a product that’s OK with DoD mass surveillance and I’m not sure my customers would want their data pumping through it either.
More details on the difference between the OpenAI and Anthropic contracts from one of the Under Secretaries of State:
>The axios article doesn’t have much detail and this is DoW’s decision, not mine. But if the contract defines the guardrails with reference to legal constraints (e.g. mass surveillance in contravention of specific authorities) rather than based on the purely subjective conditions included in Anthropic’s TOS, then yes. This, btw, was a compromise offered to—and rejected by—Anthropic.
> For the avoidance of doubt, the OpenAI - @DeptofWar contract flows from the touchstone of “all lawful use” that DoW has rightfully insisted upon & xAI agreed to. But as Sam explained, it references certain existing legal authorities and includes certain mutually agreed upon safety mechanisms. This, again, is a compromise that Anthropic was offered, and rejected.
> Even if the substantive issues are the same there is a huge difference between (1) memorializing specific safety concerns by reference to particular legal and policy authorities, which are products of our constitutional and political system, and (2) insisting upon a set of prudential constraints subject to the interpretation of a private company and CEO. As we have been saying, the question is fundamental—who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems.
> It is a great day for both America’s national security and AI leadership that two of our leading labs, OAI and xAI have reached the patriotic and correct answer here
It is a great day for both America’s national security and AI leadership that two of our leading labs, OAI and xAI have reached the patriotic and correct answer here
He's an administration official openly cheerleading his team. This should be characterized as the insider perspective/spin, not a neutral analysis of the relevant facts.
Even this most-charitable-possible (to DoW) explanation does not even come close to justifying the supply chain risk designation. It is absolutely enough (and honestly more than enough) for a contract cancellation and a switch to a competitor. DoW could have done that for any reason at all, or no reason at all. If they had issues with Anthropics terms, they 100% should have done that.
Nothing in the quoted text comes anywhere close to the realm of justifying the retaliatory actions.
The DoW is engaging in simple crybullying. In my time as an online moderator I see it all the time.
“You are impinging on my freedom to force you to participate in activities you have expressly indicated it is against your will to engage in! You bully! I am such a victim!”
I find myself totally agreeing with the quoted text and also this sentiment. It just makes no sense to nuke Anthropic as a negotiation tactic if your interest is in preserving the republic long term.
AFAIK, the U.S. government is fully entitled to serve them under the U.S. Department of War’s terms as per the Defense Production Act. The government has yet to do this, but a company acting in a way that the Department of War perceives as benefiting enemy states could certainly be a justification for declaring a supply chain risk. Anthropic’s decision timing as the U.S. has launched a war in the Middle East to save millions of Iranian lives (tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iranians have already been killed by the Islamic Regime) definitely seems to be unjustifiable and the U.S. Department of War (so weird for me to type that instead of DOD) was smart, in my opinion, not to force Anthropic to work with them but to drop all work with them and move to providers who will meet the military’s needs while at war.
(Just in case anyone was wondering, I live in Israel)
> not to force Anthropic to work with them but to drop all work with them and move to providers who will meet the military’s needs while at war.
Conversely, I’m glad that we’re looking a little further than that, and are worried about what happens after this missile exchange. After living through an endless “global war on terror” that gave us the biggest mass surveillance enabling act, it’s hard to not dismiss “it’s just until the end of this war, and we promise it’ll end well!”
> Anthropic’s decision timing as the U.S. has launched a war in the Middle East [...]
According to Anthropic, their terms have been in their contract from the beginning. The only decision they made recently is not to be strong-armed into renegotiating their contract to allow things they don't want to allow. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
> a company acting in a way that the Department of War perceives as benefiting enemy states could certainly be a justification for declaring a supply chain risk.
What’s the difference between a company not building something that’s fit for purpose for fighting a war (like a nursery refusing to build land mines), and thus not being a qualified supplier to the Government for conducting military operations, vs. being tarred with the “supply chain risk” brush? The former seems uncontroversial; the latter seems petty and retaliatory. “Supply chain risk” designations are for companies that you would do business with but might be compromised by the enemy, like when a supplier agrees to provide the DoW grenades, but the grenades could be intentionally defective such that they detonate prematurely in the soldier’s hand.
Besides, as an Israeli, imagine a world in which the manufacturers of Zyklon B refused to sell Hitler their product for the purposes of gassing human beings. It might not have prevented the Holocaust, but at least maybe impeded it a little.
>Besides, as an Israeli, imagine a world in which the manufacturers of Zyklon B refused to sell Hitler their product for the purposes of gassing human beings. It might not have prevented the Holocaust, but at least maybe impeded it a little.
Honestly, if the Holocaust was today, we would probably get 10% of comments here trying to defend "both sides". Some people have a need to try to defend every side, even if one of the sides it's asking for them to be murdered.
A government promise that they'll only do lawful things is not reassuring at all:
1. We've seen government lawyers write memos explaining why such-and-such obviously illegal act is legal (see: torture memo). Until challenged, this is basically law.
2. We've seen government change the law to make whatever they want legal (see: patriot act)
3. We've seen courts just interpret laws to make things legal
A contractor doesn't realistically have the power to push back against any of these avenues if they agree to allow anything legal.
(At the risk of triggering Godwin's Law, remember that for the most part the Holocaust was entirely legal - the Nazi's established the necessary authorization. Just to illustrate that when it comes to certain government crimes, the law alone is an insufficient shield.)
They DoW doesn't care about laws, that's the whole point. Anthropic did not believe the most law breaking administration in history when their drunkard incompetent leader said "lol trust us bro"
You're quoting social media posts from a regime official who says he didn't participate in these negotiations and doesn't work for the relevant department.
If his characterization of the agreement is correct, which I will not believe and you should not believe until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text, I suppose this would convince me that Hegseth does not literally plan to build a Terminator for democracy-ending purposes. There's a lot of inexcusable stuff here regardless, but perhaps merely boycotting OpenAI and the US military would be a sufficient response if this all checks out.
I did choose to immediately disbelieve it. If a Trump regime official tells me something, and they could plausibly benefit from lying to me about it, I assume until proven otherwise that they're lying. They've earned this reputation through a large number of consequential and later disproven lies; my apologies to Mr. Lewin if he personally is an honest man, although I might encourage him to think about whether the good he's doing in his role is so important that it outweighs the lies he's providing cover for and the gradual erosion of his integrity.
> If you've found one of these, let me know. I'm still looking...
I do not assume, and I would recommend that you do not assume, that there is such a thing as a text of the contract. It's much easier to lie about contents of documents that don't actually exist yet. Then you can craft the text in response to public feedback, writing it down in early March and telling people that it's totally a copy of what was agreed to on February 27.
As a corollary, you should be skeptical of any purported text that is not widely published soon. If there is indeed such a contract, and it says what Altman claims, he will desperately want to ensure that his employees have read a "leak" of the text by Monday morning.
how I wish that "patriotic" meant something instead of just "did what we wanted". I'm so tired of living in an era where every communication made by every organization feels like a lie
It's only $200 from me for the remainder of the year but you're not getting it anymore OpenAI. Voting with my wallet tonight. Really sad, I've followed OpenAI for years, way before ChatGPT. It's just too hard to true up my values with how they've behaved recently. This sucks. Goodnight everyone.
Just cancelled my Plus plan as well. I will still wait to see how things play out before deciding if I'll delete my account altogether, but OpenAI's actions simply don't align with my values at the moment. Very disappointing.
Look more carefully at what sam altman satd : he did not say he won't remove technical safeguards against surveilance and autonomous killing, instead he said "We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should"
You're expecting logic from the Trump administration and that's not really how they do things. Maybe it was never about the redlines? Maybe they decided Anthropic was their enemy, and that was their excuse.
This is not true. A different deal was offered to Anthropic, and they refused. Then the DoW turned around and went with OpenAI even though their terms weren’t materially different from the terms of their agreement with Anthropic.
Just uninstalled the app and canceled subscription. OpenAI can't justify their insane valuation without an user base. Especially when there are capable models elsewhere.
I bet Sam secretly pledged to DoD that the red lines were only temporary, for optics and to calm employees at the all hands meeting.
A few months down the line, OpenAI will quietly decide that their next model is safe enough for autonomous weapons, and remove their safeguard layer. The mass surveillance enablement might be an indirect deal through Palantir.
The fact they were able to strike a deal in the first place hours after Anthropic was declared a supply chain risk should make this obvious. Their employees are smart people, the only way they can reason past this is their compensation.
That's very possible! In the last few days Anthropic was getting a lot of attention, and OpenAI was looking weaker in comparison. It seems like a politically coordinated job to remove competition.
For sure, he's been pissed that OpenAI no longer has the Mandate of Heaven and Claude is all anyone has been talking about since December. (And it's not just an ego thing: because OAI isn't profitable yet, they need the hype to keep going to raise money on favorable terms, so loss of buzz is an existential threat). I absolutely believe that he started making calls to try and get buddies in the White House to take Anthropic down.
I don't trust Sam to be telling the truth. It would be to his benefit to lie about this and make Anthropic look bad, so he of course would, even if it's not actually the case.
Hell, I would have thought it likely that anthropic was doing the same thing. Of course that was proven wrong, but for OAI I wouldn't even be guessing. This has always been what sama does.
It makes sense if you imagine the real motivation is “make sure the AI contracts go to my good friend Sam”, and all the red line stuff is just a way to pick a fight with Anthropic.
It's why I think "software engineer" is a misnomer. We don't have a license, we don't have an ethics code, we don't sign off on stuff. In other disciplines, an engineer could topple a project they feel is unsafe or against code, and be backed by their union if replaced. A software engineer just says yes if their stocks aren't vested, and will be replaced if not.
I just looked this up so might not be fully accurate but it seems most private sector “engineers” don’t require a license. You only need a PE license when providing a service to the public. That is quite a strict band on the title.
Might also be different between countries. But a bridge wouldn't be built without an engineer signing off on it being safe. A process change at a production facility would need an engineer to approve that the output still will follow specs etc
> Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100.
It says it right on the homepage. Twice. Once for people, once for organisations. It’s right there in green: “BEST (SCORED OUT OF 100)”. And if you go into any of them, you see a score like N/100.
Found the methodology page, and it clarifies it goes from -100 to 100.
Also, it's probably tricky to find a Schelling point that a broad range of people can agree to.
* no military use
* no lethal use
* no use in support of law enforcement
* no use in support of immigration enforcement
* no use in mass surveillance
* no use in domestic mass surveillance (but mass surveillance of foreigners is OK)
* no use in domestic surveillance
* no use in surveillance
* require independent audits
* require court oversight
* require company to monitor use
* require company to monitor use and divulge it to employees
* some other form of human rights monitoring or auditing
* some other form of restriction on theaters/conflicts/targets
* company will permit some of these uses (not purport to forbid them by license, contract, or ToS) but not customize software to facilitate them
* company can unilaterally block inappropriate uses
* company can publicly disclose uses it thinks are inappropriate
* some other form of remedy
* government literally has to explain why some uses are necessary or appropriate to reassure people developing capabilities, and they have some kind of ongoing bargaining power to push back
It feels normal to me that a lot of people would want some of those things, but kind of unlikely that they would readily agree on exactly which ones.
I even think there's a different intuition about the baseline because one version is "nobody works on weapons except for people who specifically make a decision to work for an arms company because they have decided that's OK according to their moral views" (working on weapons is an abnormal, deliberate decision) and another version is "every company might sell every technology as part of a weapons system or military application, and a few people then object because they've decided that's not OK according to their moral views" (refusing to work on weapons is an abnormal, deliberate decision). I imagine a fair number of people in computing fields effectively thought that the norm or default for their industry was the latter, because of the perception that there are "special" military contractors where people get security clearances and navigate military procurement processes, and most companies are not like that, so you were not working on any form of weapon unless you intentionally chose to do so. But, having just been to the Computer History Museum earlier this week, I also see that a lot of Silicon Valley companies have actually been making weapons systems for as long as there has been a Silicon Valley.
There is definitely a muddle on so many levels about signaling and agreeing on ethics in technology.
But as innovation slows globally, it is implementation, ethics, and ideology that will once again be the dominant metrics of progress, so there's a new window emerging to push for this social/moral change in technology once again.
So it's still critically important that we actively work towards finding a meaningful, socially contagious differentiator other than "ethical technologist" even if it's difficult- look at what OpenAI gets away with under that flimsy banner.
"Starting today I will be asking prominent members of the tech community to sign their name onto this. A code of conduct, authored by me, that pledges them to a universal ethos, which I created, that I call tech ethics or Tethics for short."
I think it would still be useful. Call my cynical but gone are the days where the individual comp and benefits available to SWEs outweigh the benefits of collective bargaining.
This, honestly. Seeing all those billionaires on inauguration day lined up to kiss the ring was utterly pathetic. Like what is the fucking point of having billions of dollars if you're just going to be someone else's bitch. And for what? A couple more billion dollars. Oof
I would put bets on the issue probably being that it was pointed out that Anthropic's models were used to assist the raid in Venezuela, Anthropic then aggressively doubled down on their rules/principles and the DOD didn't like being called out on that so they lashed out, hard.
If theres anything this admin doesn't like, its being postured against or called out by literally anyone, especially in public.
In an imaginary world, this would be a precursor to Anthropic coming to EU in a greater capacity and teaming up with Mistral, eventually leading to similar innovation and progress that DeepSeek forced upon the West, benefitting everyone in the long run. They seem to have the morals for it and the respect for human rights and life given their recent announcement (after some backtracking), unlike OpenAI. Sadly, that's not the real world.
I think you guys are giving far too much attention to the "autonomous weapons" angle and not enough to the "spying on Americans" angle. It makes no sense to use an LLM to power an autonomous weapon. It does make a lot of sense to use an LLM to monitor communications and public social media profiles to create a list of "domestic terrorists" that they can then target. I'm willing to bet this is what the administration wanted to use Anthropic for.
Sure, and actually the open models are already good enough to do that, it's not like any company could stop any organization that can collect the data from doing this.
I had kept my Plus subscription just because I was lazy, and it was inexpensive and convenient… but this turn definitely helped me get off the fence. I am exporting and deleting my data now, and the cancellation is already done.
Domestic means nothing, it’s like the company Daniel Ek invested in saying they won’t sell weapons to ”Democracies”, in the context of warfare and control these words are meaningless.
They will deploy this on a domestic scale and claim to use it to locate non-domestic threats. I can’t believe anyone is falling for this.
Who said that any of it is legal? Keeping in mind that when the government does something, it usually takes more than 24h for there to be an official determination on whether they broke the law.
>human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems
So there’s the difference, and an erasure of a red line. OpenAI is good with autonomous weapon systems. Requiring human responsibility isn’t saying much. Theres already military courts, rules of engagement, and international rules of war.
At this stage, everything OpenAi does is to try to keep investors investing.
They’re willing to let their brand go to trash for this government contract.
Pretty much every American is standing with Anthropic on this. No one left or right wants mass surveillance and terminators. In fact, no one in the world wants this, except the US military.
But Altman seems so desperate to keep the cash coming he’s ready to do anything.
So does this mean that OpenAI will give whatever the DoD asks for and they will pinky swear that it won’t be used for mass surveillance and autonomous killing machines?
and we know we can trust openAI because they were founded on "open" and "safe" AI (up until they realized how much money there was to be made, at which point their only value changed to "make money")
It’s amazing how quickly the players keep shifting here.
Yesterday and the day before sentiment seemed to be focused on “Anthropic selling out”, then that shifted to “Anthropic holds true to its principles in a David vs Goliath” and “the industry will rally around one another for the greater good.” But suddenly we’re seeing a new narrative of “Evil OpenAI swoops in to make a deal with the devil.”
Reminds of that weekend where Sam Altman lost control of OpenAI.
He’s certainly solidified his place in the history of this era.
But I suspect the public sentiment will eventually turn against him. When society sets its pitchforks on big tech he’ll be the poster boy. A 21st century John D. Rockefeller.
I considered that comparison, but in all seriousness, I’m not sure it’s apt.
Are he and his peers Hitler or they the naive oligarchs who think they can keep populist leaders and their constituencies under their thumb? Only to be out maneuvered by the people who the masses think have their back.
I know many folks who think their political leaders have the best interest at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know nobody who thinks tech leaders do. At best they want to be them.
I'm unsure how to feel about this whole dust-up. It doesn't seem like much has changed in substance. Maybe OpenAI outmaneuvered Anthropic behind the scenes. Possibly Anthropic was seen as not behaving deferentially enough towards the government. But this administration has proven comically corrupt, so it wouldn't surprise me if money was involved. Will be interested to see what journalists turn up.
I have just canceled all services and deleted my account with OpenAI. They can get money from the current US regime but I will not contribute to their violations of the constitution.
So this week we've learned that even the government asseses Anthropic has the better model, and that OpenAI leadership has no concern for safety whatsoever.
So they agreed to the exact same clauses that Anthropic put forward but with OpenAI instead?
So it wasn't about those principles making them a supply chain risk? They're just trying to punish Anthropic for being the first ones to stand firm on those principles?
Anthropic would probably not renegotiate in a year about the principles, while Sam Altman is known to be morally flexible so OpenAI will almost surely allow the military to do what they want in the future. Sam Altman might even have said behind closed doors that these restrictions will be removed once the drama has died down.
What principals do Anthropic have?, they happily build a product and acknowledge it will lead to the loss of millions of jobs, particularly SWE's first, but shrug and say 'nothing we can do, we just build the thing', that will kill a lot of people.
Subscribers should be aware what they are supporting. I think that keeping an OpenAI account can be considered an active support of this decision, at least for private people who can easily change providers.
If the "safety stack" (guardrails) bit is true, it's the exact opposite of their beef with Anthropic... which is not surprising given who's running the US right now.
I always assumed those folks need a way to look strong with their base for a media moment over equitable application of the policies or law.
They're pretending like they didn't enter into this agreement last January and are completely entrenched in intelligence programs already. They are trying to make it look like they are stepping up in a time of need (time of need for the DoD), in reality they sold their soul to intelligence and the military a year ago.
I posted about this here after Sam made his tweet:
Both are based in Europe but Proton Lumo has the better privacy promises.
Would be interested in experiences of others with those alternatives for question/answering type research (not for coding for which there exist other, better alternatives like Gemini and Claude)
While Dario is not my hero with the sometimes the outrageous things he says he has a firm moral compass and a backbone that aligns with mine and thus I will support his company and their products in my personal use and my work.
If you're unhappy with this, an immediate way to signal it is with your wallet. In my case I've just uninstalled chatgpt from my phone, cancelled my subscription and will up my spend with anthropic.
The little respect I had left for Sam is now wiped. Makes me sick.
Growing up I always thought AI would be this beautiful tool, this thing that opens the gates to a new society where work becomes optional in a way. But I failed to think about human greed.
I remember following OpenAI way back when it was a non profit explaining how AI uncontrolled could be highly detrimental. Now Sam has not only taken that non profit and made it for-profit. It seems he’s making the most evil decisions he can for a buck.
Cancel your subscription, tell your friends to. And vote to heavily tax these companies and their leaders.
Perfect timing - Had already cancelled my Claude sub over their OAuth ban in external tools and was about to pick up a Codex sub as the next best alternative.
Ended up renewing my Claude sub today instead. Principled stances matter and I no longer trust OpenAI to be trustworthy custodians of my AI History.
Just canceled my subscription! I immediately received an email with the subject “We’d love your feedback on why you canceled your ChatGPT plus subscription” and a link to a survey.
Totally agree. Signed up for a claude code account and will not give OpenAI any money in the future. Let's see what Google does. I will definitely vote with my wallet.
Do you honestly believe that cancelling a subscription makes a bit of difference to a company that is either committing accounting fraud on a monumental scale or shoveling venture capital money into a furnace? not to mention the whole collaborating with a fascist government thing.
taking real action is your choice, but stop pretending this kind of thing matters one iota
edit: to be clear, i'm not advocating for nihilism, but tricking yourself into thinking you made a difference to make yourself feel better isn't the play either
It absolutely matters, especially when done in unison like this.
Cancelling ChatGPT sends a signal that you don't agree with weaponizing AI. Switching to Claude says you support Anthropic's principled stance against it. If you have a strong opinion either way, today is the day to vote with your wallet.
Dismissing every small action as meaningless is just apathy and how nothing ever changes.
Anthropic isn't against weaponizing AI, it's just against two specific carve outs for now. They happily accepted the Pentagon's money so long as it was only spying on other countries. And now that the leopard is eating their face they're claiming the moral high ground.
It's entirely possible for both Anthropic and OpenAI to be in the wrong here. This is a massive publicity win but it doesn't make them heroes in my book.
It sure does but it's hard to get a bigger wallet than public money in the US. I do think it's fundamental as an individual to take a moral stance, even if it's entirely pointless, for one owns psychological well-being but honestly here I believe the whole point is precisely to decouple from the need of consumers who are clearly NOT paying for AI. Relying on income from governments is a smart move.
So yes, do cancel if you were paying for OpenAI. Stop using it entirely even, but don't necessarily expect to slow down their encroachment, sadly.
What has an impact is cancelling a subscription and then talking about it. The media will amplify it the pushback. The goal is to make the name OpenAI and ChatGPT toxic, that whatever you do will be converted into a technology that will surveil or bomb you.
I think you have too much pessimism. It's not guaranteed to work, but as I mentioned in another thread, since around December, Claude (and Gemini to a lesser extent) has had all the buzz in tech circles, while Chat-GPT has seemed like the also-ran. And that matters: decision-makers in companies notice these things and momentum becomes self-reinforcing (you use Claude Code because everyone else uses Claude Code). If a large enough group of developers visibly defects from OpenAI because of this, it definitely could have consequences. It's not a sure thing, but it's far from hopeless.
I was not a Chat-GPT user even before this, but I'm bumping my Claude Code subscription to the next tier up. Fuck OpenAI.
Do they? What are those OpenAI earnings that you are talking about? That's a company that should have ceased existing some time ago if earnings were important
It's the only thing that matters. These companies don't follow the rules of capitalism physics. They live or die on vibes alone and the tech community abandoning them en masse is bad for the vibes. Once they lose the vibes they are Wiley Coyote looking down at the canyon below.
> but stop pretending this kind of thing matters one iota
This is blatantly false and intellectually dishonest. Of course it matters. Your edit is also wrong; you are advocating for nihilism with statments like these.
Personally I'm happy about this. OpenAI are being fair about letting the gov use their models to spy on everybody, doesn't seem right that Americans get a pass.
Remember when openai was too afraid to release the full GPT-2 model (this one had only 1.5B params) because humanity apparently wasn't ready for it. Look where we are just a couple of years later. I really admired them back in the day for openai gym and PPO etc.
So basically Greg Brockman of OpenAI, currently the largest MAGA PAC donor, used his bribe to make the government destroy his main competition? I’m absolutely cancelling ChatGPT and will tell everyone I know to cancel as well.
I also absolutely do not trust sleezy Sam Altman when he claims he has the same exact redlines as Anthropic:
> AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
If Hegseth and Trump attack Anthropic and sign a deal with OpenAI under the same restrictions, it means this is them corrupting free markets by picking which companies win. Maybe it’s at the behest of David Sacks, the corrupt AI czar who complained about lawfare throughout the Biden administration but now cheers on far worse lawfare.
So it’s either a government looking to surveil citizens illegally or a government that is deeply corrupt and is using its power to enrich some people above others.
It is quite shocking that almost all AI companies are saying "we are not ok with domestic surveillance" but they'll happily sign up to surveilling the rest of the world population.
So by that measure the US govt can go get some Israeli software to surveill their domestic populace!
For the people that don't understand how they got a deal with the same redlines, it probably because OpenAI agreed to not question them. The safeguards are there, both parties agree now fuck off and let us use your model how we see fit.
Anthropic probably made the mistake of questioning the Military's activities related to Claude after the Venezuela mission and wanted reassurance that the model wouldn't be used for the redlines, and the military didn't like this and told them we aren't using your models unless you agree to not question us and then the back and forth started.
In the end, we will probably have both OpenAI and Anthropic providing AI to the military and that's a good thing. I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week.
Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic should all have each other's backs when it comes to hard lines like this. Sam can say whatever he wants, but signing this deal on the same day Trump and Hegseth went scorched earth on Anthropic — for standing up for the very values OpenAI claims to hold — is sleazy.
Screw Sam, and screw OpenAI. I've been a customer of theirs since the first month their API opened to developers. Today I cancelled my subscription and deleted my account.
I'd already signed up for Claude Max and had been slow to cancel my OpenAI subscriptions. This finally made the decision easy.
Funny that these are the same people that have been blasting the alarm on dangers of AI singularity. Now they cannot wait to put their tools in weapons.
From the man who founded Worldcoin and built a grandiose vision of having the biometrics of every human in the developing world saved on his own corporate database: America - you're next.
Well ... bumped up my Claude subscription from Pro to Max and closed out my OpenAI accounts. It's a drop in the ocean but I'll sleep better knowing I did the right thing. Thanks ChatGPT! It was good knowing you.
Please note that the US Congress has not approved the existence of a "Department of War" this century. Calling it the Department of Defense is the only legally correct way to refer to it.
Is there anyone who really understands what’s different about the OpenAI agreement? Or maybe these are just Sam Altman’s public statements that don’t actually reflect the real terms of the deal. I honestly can’t figure it out.
Maybe the problem here is they are negotiating by using social media posts. Where is the team of Anthropic people, and the team of Gov people, that should be in a room somewhere doing this in private?
> Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.
Under normal circumstances, that would seem really plausible. But given how far Trump continues to go just out of spite and to project power, it actually is the opposite.
I am fully prepared to believe that they got absolutely nothing else out of it (to date).
All of this, the news articles, the social media discussion, this very discussion, will be part of the training set for future AIs. What will they learn from this?
I know the reaction to this, if you're a rational observer, is "OpenAI have cut corners or made concessions that Anthropic did not, that's the only thing that makes sense."
However, if you live in the US and pay a passing attention to our idiotic politics, you know this is right out of the Trump playbook. It goes like this:
* Make a negotiation personal
* Emotionally lash out and kill the negotiation
* Complete a worse or similar deal, with a worse or similar party
* Celebrate your worse deal as a better deal
Importantly, you must waste enormous time and resources to secure nothing of substance.
That's why I actually believe that OpenAI will meet the same bar Anthropic did, at least for now. Will they continue to, in the same way Anthropic would have? Seems unlikely, but we'll see.
Another good question: If OpenAI knew Anthropic wasn't a competitor... was the price higher? Will the federal government also pay more for a worse product?
We really need a plan for the scenario in which the US loses the trade war and decides to go homicidal AI on the whole world. Like, help them recover or something.
regardless of your opinion of ai in government, sam could not have picked a worse way for optics to swoop in and make a deal. it just looks incredibly bad.
This is really about the imminent strike on Iran which is now super telegraphed. They are gonna use ChatGPT for target selection, and the likely outcome is that it will fuck things up and a bunch of civilians are going to die because of this decision.
When this happens, Altman will go from being merely a drifter to having blood on his hands.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has over 200,000 personnel. There are thousands of putative SAM sites and MANPAD launch sites. The amount of data to crunch is significant.
Alternatively, the DoW is simply incompetent and Trump or Hegseth wants to use AI to draft war plans.
The Iran situation is unique. If it is true that Epstein was part of a blackmailing operation run by Israeli intelligence, then the time to act is limited. It may only be a matter of time before the US-Israel special relationship begins to deteriorate, especially as the House of Representatives starts digging into what was going on.
For hardline right wing Israeli government officials who would be privy to such information, the window of time to leverage to US to enact regime change on the Islamic Republic is closing. The survival of Israel over the long run really depends on not having a hardline Islamic regime in Iran developing nuclear weapons. Things like AI safety and US elections are secondary to such prerogatives. The question for voters in the US is whether it really is worth it to the average US citizen to shed blood and tax dollars for this stuff.
I hope there can be a peaceful regime change in Iran and that there will be peaceful relations with Iran and Israel in the future. But damn I wish things could go back to normal with our US political system once this is all settled.
1. There's no substantive change. Hegseth/Trump just wanted to punish Anthropic for standing up to them, even if it didn't get them anything else today -- establishing a chilling effect for the future has some value for them in this case, after all. And OpenAI was willing to help them do that, despite earlier claiming that they stood behind Anthropic's decisions.
2. There is a substantive change. Despite Altman's words, they have a tacit understanding that OpenAI won't really enforce those terms, or that they'll allow them to be modified some time in the future when attention has moved on elsewhere.
Either way, it makes Altman look slimy, and OpenAI has aligned with Trump against Anthropic in a place where Anthropic made a correct principled stand. It's been clear for a while that Anthropic has more ethics than OpenAI, but this is more naked than any previous example.
If you believe that any country should have a military and intelligence apparatus, the job of that apparatus is to kill people and surveil foreigners. I do think the US government should have a military and intelligence apparatus. Therefore, any company that works with it, from suppliers of clothing and food to suppliers of compute and AI, are supporting an organization with that mission.
The US military _does not_ need to build autonomous weapon systems and _should not_ surveil US citizens broadly.
> The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
(1) Well, did both sides sign the agreement and is it actually effective? Or is it still sitting on someone's desk until it can get stalled long enough?
(2) What does "agreement" even mean? Is it a legally enforceable contract, or just some sort of MoU or pinkie promise?
(3) If it's a legally enforceable contract, is it equally enforceable on all of their contracts, or just some? Do they not have existing contracts this would need to apply to?
(4) What does "reflects them in law and policy" even mean? Since when does DoW make laws, and in what sense do their laws reflect whatever the agreement was? Are these laws he can point to so everyone else can see? Can he at least copy-paste the exact sentences the government agreed to?
At this point it seems the entire AI Safety/Ethics debate was nothing more than a Marketing campaign to hype up the capabilities of the models - get people to think that if they're potentially dangerous that must mean they're so capable and they need to sign up for a subscription.
The stories I’ve been reading say that the DoW’s agreement with OpenAI contain the very same limitations as the agreement with Anthropic did. In other words, they pressured Anthropic to eliminate those restrictions, Anthropic declined, then they made a huge fuss calling them “a radical left, woke company,” put them on the supply-chain risk list, then went with OpenAI even though OpenAI isn’t changing anything either.
The whole story makes no sense to me. The DoW didn’t get what they wanted, and now Anthropic is tarred and feathered.
“OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said the company’s deal with the Defense Department includes those same prohibitions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, as well as technical safeguards to make sure the models behave as they should.”
How did they agree to the terms that were initially put forward by Anthropic but with OpenAI? Surely there’s a catch here. Or is it just Sam negotiation skill?
So now we are waiting for Anthropic to explain to us what Sam agreed to and what they rejected.
On the surface, it looks like both rejected 'domestic mass surveillance' and 'autonomous weapon systems', but there seem to be important differences in the fine print, since one company is being labeled a 'supply chain risk' while the other 'reached the patriotic and correct answer'.
One explanation would be that the DoW changed its demands, but I doubt that. Instead, I believe OpenAI found a loophole that allows those cases under certain conditions.
Perhaps Trump's DOD objects specifically to Anthropic models themselves declining to do immoral and illegal things, and not something just stipulated in an ignorable contract. That would give room for Sam to throw some public CYA into a contract, while neutering model safety to their requirements.
Remember that the US administration is supporting Israel on the ethnic-cleansing and genocide of Gaza, using Palantir technology and AI systems that generate kill lists. It's "IBM and the Holocaust" all over again.
Oh yeah, from the company which raison d'etre was being open and being good.
shocked pikachu face
Come on by now we all know the only thing Altman (who else is still at OpenAI from the start?) wants it more money and more power, it doesn't really matter how.
Is this setting the stage for a bailout? Was the whole thing between the three parties smoke and mirrors to justify a bailout down the line? It's conspiracy theory territory but, you know who we're dealing with here.
So nice of him! I am sure he believes they should offer these terms to all competitors.
HN: if you continue to subscribe to OpenAI, if you use it at your startup, you’re no better than the tech bros you often criticize. This is not surprising but beyond shady.
Sam must not be aware of what happened to any business or foreign nation/leader considered outwardly friendly to the first Trump administration when the democrats regained control in 2020.
to all the naysayers: what did all these people doing AI research expect? that the military doesn't want to use their stuff? and then when it does, Pikachu face?
I know I'll get down voted but come on, this is so very naive.
So while Sam Altman claims that OAI received promises not to have fully automated killbot-GPT from Hegseth, so did Anthropic(!)—but it contained weasel legal language that allowed the USG to ignore the restrictions at will. (We all know how the current admin reads such language.)
So until we see the contract I think it’s fair to assume that OAI and Anthropic got roughly the same deal, with Anthropic insisting on language that actually limits the government, while OAI licked the boot and is passing it off like filet mignon.
There will be a scene in some future movie about Trump's authoritarian rise (we are still early in it) that shows Sam signing this agreement. Sam will be played by a character actor meant to symbolize silicon valley opportunism and greed.
What sam and greg don't realize is that the many who succumb to trump's pressure tactics will all be lumped into the same category by history.
Sam and Greg are handing an authoritarian regime that has broken so many laws in the past year a superweapon.
I hope so but I am less optimistic. The oligarchy in Russia who remained loyal to the Putin regime have done just fine for decades as long as they did not attempt to overthrow the dictator. The regime in Washington is basically constructing the same type of kleptocracy and very little evidence is there that anyone who matters will get in their way. So far as I can tell the country is already a form of authoritarian regime where the loyalty to the supreme ruler is the main parameter of conducting business there.
It’s the Department of Defense, and let’s not have the main post be a link to the non-consensual-porn-generating and Nazi-supporting site. Could an admin change the main link to the Fortune article also linked here?
Thank you Sam Altman for being a man with a good sense of ethics and empowering the US Military while it fights evil in Iran and empowering the US government and ignoring the idiotic haters
There's a lot of people in this thread that assume that Sam Altman is the one who is being dishonest here, and I kind of understand, but the other two parties who could just as easily be lying are Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump, and of the three of them if you think sama is the _most_ likely to lie I feel like you have not been paying attention.
"Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.
In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.
AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only.
We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements.
We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place."
That means autonomous killbots are a-ok. Human responsibility is not the same as human decision-making.
The president or anybody at DoD can be "responsible", and we know there will be zero accountability. The courts defer to the executive, and Congress is all-too-happy for the executive to take the flak for their wars.
> We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should
A bold statement. It would appear they've definitively solved prompt injection and all the other ills that LLMs have been susceptible to. And forgot to tell the world about it.
I am glad OpenAI stood up to do what's right and give the American people the ability to choose how AI is used for themselves rather than dictating it from their high horse.
Edit: It looks like the terms are similar in OpenAI's deal in what they prohibit so it isn't clear why they are any better. We should be the ones dictating what is and isn't prohibited. Not Sam. We will have to wait for more news on what is actually different.
Any government is allowed to choose to do whatever it wants however it wishes; in a republic: given what is legally determined by the three branches. Obviously. They can contract with whomever they want, make any deal with whomever they want.
This also means that they should adhere to a deal once it is signed. That's part of the law too. They shouldn't suddenly turn around and try to alter the deal, then retaliate against their deal partner when they say "that wasn't the deal". You can't just go and answer: "Pray we don't alter it further".
The government of a nation sets the example for others, and should be scrupulous in their dealings.
Just because you sign a deal that didn't mean you can't change it or terminate it in the future. As long as both parties agree any contract can be modified or terminated. If they don't usually the contract contains information on how it works.
from the tweet above: "Maybe even more importantly: Anthropic wants to control what people do with AI—they block companies they don't like from using their coding product (including us), they want to write the rules themselves for what people can and can't use AI for, and now they also want to tell other companies what their business models can be."
Raise your hand if you actually read it or if you read the title and replied? I see a lot of comments that sure seem like they didn’t read it.
> Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
IF this is true, it SHOULD be verifiable. So, we wait? I mean, I am a dummy, but that language doesn’t seem too washy too me? Either it’s a bold face lie and OpenAI burns because of it or it’s true and the Trump admin is going after the “left” AI company. Or whatever. My point is, someone smarter than me/us is going to fact check Sam’s claim.
The problem is that many of those would-be fact checkers have massive incentives to lie about it. So regardless of whether it is true, you're going to see a number of detailed and well-researched pieces over the weekend arguing that Altman is right and this whole thing is Anthropic's fault. The set of people who could cause OpenAI to burn and the set of people who have millions of dollars riding on its success substantially overlap; it may not take a particularly good argument to convince them.
> Either it’s a bold face lie and OpenAI burns because of it
Do you really still genuinely believe in this? This is the same person that said ads is going to be the last resort, and yet we are getting ads. I just don't understand how people can trust a single word coming out of folks like Sam, Musk, Trump or whoever rich asshole.
I listen to these people talk and they literally do not have souls. They will say whatever it is they need to get ahead. I watched a couple of Sam speeches and videos, the man does not have anything interesting to say.
I like the idea of seeing someone post “I dislike and distrust Sam Altman” and thinking “They must be saying that because they haven’t read the things that he writes”
"The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement" is incredibly wishy washy.
What does it even mean to reflect those principles in law? Did they pass a law that says they can't do it? Which one?
What does it mean to "put them into our agreement"? Did they just have a section in the appendix listing various principles, or is there agreement from both parties to not violate those principles? What system does the contract specify for verification of compliance?
I mean, this is a company literally named "Open"AI, nominally a non-profit or whatever. I think they will survive quietly opening an endpoint for their customer. Unlikely anyone is under enough illusions about Sama's moral character to be scandalized by deception.
Do you know who isn't a dummy? Sam. The crucial part of that statement is that the DoD will use OpenAI systems "lawfully and responsibly," which I don't doubt is written somewhere in their contract. However, those terms are so open-ended that it's impossible for OpenAI to enforce. Sam could have clarified in his tweet that they explicitly prohibited the use of their technology for mass surveillance and autonomous killings, but he deliberately chose not to and to simply say, "We told them not to do bad things." which smells like bullshit
No contract can require the government to “reflect” something in law, aside from the fact that the DoD is not a legislative body. So whatever Sam is talking about can only be lip service.
I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue competing on the basis of differing services and not differing scruples). Given this understanding, I don't see why I should quit. If it turns out that the deal is being misdescribed or that it won't be enforced, I can see why I should quit, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that's the case.
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value in any case. If it is loose terms or a wink agreement to not check in on enforcement you're never going to be told that. We can imagine other scenerios where the terms stated were not the real reason for the blacklisting, but it's a real struggle (at least for me) to find an explanation for this deal that doesn't paint OpenAI in a very ethically questionable light.
> it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened
I think what you are missing is their annual comp with two commas in it.
When the genius of Upton Sinclair and Russ Hanneman come together so eloquently.
This, for that check theyll be building the autonomous robots themselves, saying "theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!"
For today's lucky ten thousand, this essay was previously featured on HN
https://calebhearth.com/dont-get-distracted
Don't get distracted
Back in 1960 us early detection systems mistook the moon for a massive nuclear first strike with 99.9% certainty. With a fully autonomous system the world would have burned.
> theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!"
You underestimate how many top AI scientists are perfectly okay with building autonomous weapons systems and are not ashamed of it.
Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year.
Now note that many L7+ at OpenAI are making $10 million+ per year.
> Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year.
I sincerely doubt that's true. I hope it's not. $1m is a lot of money, but I find it hard to believe most people would be willing to indiscriminately kill a large number of people for it.
Never mind people in the US, there are plenty of people elsewhere happy to work with their governments who are doubtless developing such autonomous entities.
It doesn't need to be most, it just needs to be enough. I dont think it's close to a majority, but at the same time its more than enough.
Another point completely unrelated to my previous story: Since the advent of pretty good LLMs starting in 2023, when I watch flims with warfare set in the future, it makes absolutely no sense that soldiers are still manually aiming. I'm not saying it will be like Terminator 2 right away, but surely the 19-22 year old operator will just point the weapon in the general direction of the target, then AI will handle the rest. And yet, we still see people manually aiming and shooting in these scenarios. Am I the only one who cringes when I see this? There is something uncanney valley about it, like seeing a character in a film using a flip phone post-2015! Maybe directors don't want to show us the ugly truth of the future of warfare.
I don't cringe because it's for dramatic/narrative effect. It's the same reason the crew of the Enterprise regularly beam into dangerous locations rather than sending a semi-autonomous drone. Or that despite having intelligent machines their operations are often very manual, as it is on many science fiction shows. The audience (if they think about it) realises this is not realistic and understands that the vast majority of our exploration would be done by unmanned/automated vessels. But that wouldn't be very interesting.
Other universes take it further - Warhammer 40k often features combatants fighting with melee weapons. Rule of cool and all that.
Agreed, but I think it goes far beyond warfare. The biggest "plot hole" in much scifi (IMO) is the lack of explanation for why all the depicted systems aren't autonomous. Most worldbuilding seems rather lazy to me, a haphazard mishmash of things that imply AGI and things that would only ever exist in a pre-ChatGPT world.
One of the few works that at least attempts to get this right is the Culture series where it's remarked on several different occasions that anything over some threshold of computing power has AGI built into it (but don't worry you're totally free, just ignore the hall monitor in all of your devices).
True that - everybody has a price.
I mean this is not actually true and the statement justifies and vindicates those that do sell out by saying of course anyone would. There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things.
A better way is to say you can always find a cheap sellout at least than the morally dammed cannot claim equality of belief
> There are countless marytr for religion, politics, and other things.
I think those are not really comparable to OpenAI employees who leave, but that only underlines your point more:
Leaving OpenAI is not like death. In fact most of the employees will have an easy time finding a new job, given the resume of having worked at OpenAI. It is nowhere near any actual martyr.
You mean like all of the religious leaders who are actively supporting a defending a three time married adulterer? You’ll have to excuse my skepticism of the morality of “the moral majority”.
Religion is and always has been about control… it strikes me as exceedingly naive to be surprised the church is backing a pedophile, have you literally ever read any history of any kind?
I am the last person to be surprised at the corruption of any large organization.
Not claiming all religious people everywhere are some moral majority? Simply that people die for there beliefs and don't sellout. It happens in religion, politics etc. Also it's some super faulty logic to say look those prominent religious people support trump so all religous people support him is stupid. If that were the case Trump would win every election by massive margins. Trump might win 60/40 in rural areas the 40% he is losing is still very religous generally speaking because rural populations are religious. Cambridge MA voted for Biden by like 96% they have more than 4% of there populations that is also religious.
Also your point is kind of self defeating Trump's true believers dont sell Trump out no matter what he does. He could hide and suppress a pedophile conspiracy and his believers will still say he is tough on crime.
Selling out is bad I think people should passionate stand and be consistent in what they believe and do anything less shouldn't be celebrated or excused because its hard
80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump.
2 things
1) I don't think you have read nor understood my argument. Stating that 80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump is not the the ding you think it is. Your imply 1/5 of Evangelicals don't sellout? I think that estimate is way too high and even if it was 99.99% of Evangelic Christians that doesn't excuse their selling hence my original statement. Say everyone sellsout so its okay to sell out is excusing in my opinion is abhorent behavior and suppport of an extremely dangerous leader. But this leads to point 2.
2) I am assuming your a democrat, congrats me to. I am also religiou, and I am assuming your not religous. But you don't see to undertand much about different religous groups and I think this sharp narrow view thinking really harms the democrats ability to reach out to religous people which is around 70-75% of american's according to pew research.
If you want to understand Evangelicals are basically defined by following some charismatic leader who either speaks for Christ, or has visions, or just claims to have all the answers. Believers will follow in any direction because they trust that person but when trust is lost they usually face a crisis of faith and leave that church or the faith all together because they didn't really have strong buy in to the ideals of chirst just that person. This is an extremely well documented occurence. While not all Evangelical people are that occurence a large number are and that architype perfectly describes Trump supporters and MAGA cultist. I think that explains the extreme overlap.
But also religion is a much more complex subject than 1 statistic, as being MAGA is not on the set of beliefs required to be Christian, In fact being a good person isn't either. I think it would be worth while to read up on up and coming people like James Talarico, who understand well that infusing the 2 philosophies is motivating. Because remember religion while being used to do horrible things was also used to immensely liberal things. Universal voting is a protestant thing, anti slavery is largerly a religous movement against white supremacy. The civil rights movement is baked in religion.
Understanding religion as equal to Trump support is corrosive the game of politics and pandering the playroom of vanity. As it doesn't help change anything and is just social meeting points to talk that way. I don't care for vanity I care about wining political power and using it run the country well and help people. I care about uplifting people economically, so they have the freedom to explore whatever faith, athiestism, or whatever they want because that liberality I believe is inherent into the decency of the human condition.
I very much understand religion and I’m surrounded by religious folks as a 52 year old Black guy growing up with religious parents and still living in the Bible Belt and I actually went to a private Christian mostly white school through elementary school.
I understand the difference between socially liberal Christian churches like the ones that were key to the civil rights movement and today are fightijg ICE.
My own wife is what I consider a very liberal Christian. She is a tither and she also is a dance fitness instructor and almost every male fitness I instructor in her organization is gay and she considers them friends and she is as far away from MAGA as possible. (I was a fitness instructor part time for over a decade myself in my younger years and I am well aware that all male instructors aren’t gay).
But the Black led mega churches also aren’t speaking up strongly about all of the things that clearly go up against the “RFC of Christianity” - adultery, bearing false witness, etc.
I think the tragic thing is that not everyone has a price, just the vast majority.
1,000,000 ? lol gimme 200,000 and I'm your trigger puller
How many?
As many as are at OpenAI about a month from now.
The world needs a nuclear war to just eliminate 99% of human life and just start over.
Same answer the last ten thousand edge lords who said this got: you first.
but you're part of the 1%, right?
Either that or a cockroach.
And all the survivors die from radiation? This must be a joke
Theres 8 billion people. Some will survive statistically. Not many but some.
Lets be real one comma is enough for most Americans to flee their own humanity.
Hey, with expected stock payout - tres commas!
Shit, I wonder if I still have any of those ‘tres commas club’ t-shirts lying around?
One explanation is that this is effectively a quid pro quo, given Brockman’s enormous financial support of the current president.
Yep, theoretically it could just be oligarchic corruption and not institutional insanity at the highest levels of the government. What a reassuring relief it would be to believe that.
I agree with your assessment, but given the past behaviour of this administration I wouldn't be shocked to discover that the real reason is "petulance".
It’s obvious retaliation, and will be struck down by the courts.
Maybe, within the next 5 years.
I agree it makes little sense, and I think if all players were rational it never would have played out this way. My understanding is that there are other reasons (i.e., beyond differing red lines) that made the OpenAI deal more palatable, but unfortunately the information shared with me has not been made public so I won't comment on specifics. I know that's unsatisfying, but I hope it serves as some very mild evidence that it's not all a big fat lie.
Your ballooned unvested equity package is preventing you from seeing the difference between “our offering/deal is better” and “designated supply chain risk and threatening all companies who do business with the government to stop using Anthropic or will be similarly dropped” (which is well past what the designation limits). It’s easier being honest.
The supply chain risk stuff is bogus. Anthropic is a great, trustworthy company, and no enemy of America. I genuinely root for Anthropic, because its success benefits consumers and all the charities that Anthropic employees have pledged equity toward.
Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me. I can see arguments on both sides and I acknowledge it’s probably impossible to eliminate all possible bias within myself.
One thing I hope we can agree on is that it would be good if the contract (or its relevant portions) is made public so that people can judge for themselves, without having to speculate about who’s being honest and who’s lying.
>Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me.
That isn't what many of us are challenging here. We're not concerned about OpenAI's ethics because they agreed to work with the government after Anthropic was mistreated.
We're skeptical because it seems unlikely that those restrictions were such a third rail for the government that Anthropic got sanctioned for asking for them, but then the government immediately turned around and voluntarily gave those same restrictions to OpenAI. It's just tough to believe the government would concede so much ground on this deal so quickly. It's easier to believe that one company was willing to agree to a deal that the other company wasn't.
I’m skeptical because while I can totally believe that the deal presently contains restrictive language, I can totally believe that OpenAI will abandon its ethical principles to create wealth for the people who control it. Sort of like how they used to be a non-profit that was, allegedly, about creating an Open AI, and now they’re sabotaging the entire world’s supply of RAM to discourage competition to their closed, paid model.
Not "asking for them", insisting the already agreed to terms be respected.
> It's just tough to believe the government would concede so much ground on this deal so quickly.
Well… TACO.
Exactly this. Looks like we had the same conclusion. I really am inclined to believe that OpenAI given that its IPO'ing (soon?) would be absolutely decimated and employees would be leaving left and right if they proclaimed that, yes OpenAI is selling DOD autonomous killing machines.
But we all know how OpenAI is desperate for money, its the weakest link in the bubble quite frankly burning Billions and failed at Sora and there isn't much moat as well economically.
DOD giving them billions for a deal feels like a huge carrot on the stick and wink wink (let's have autonomous killing machines) with the skepticism that you, me or perhaps most people of the community would share.
I for what its worth, don't appreciate Anthropic in its whole (I do still remember perhaps the week old thread where everyone pushed on Anthropic for trying to see user data through API when they looked at the chinese models whole thing) but I give credit where its due and Enemy of my Enemy is my friend, and at the moment it seems that OpenAI might be more friendlier to DOD who wishes to create autonomous killing machine and mass surveillance systems which is like Sci-fi level dystopia rather than anthropic.
> One thing I hope we can agree on is that it would be good if the contract (or its relevant portions) is made public
Until they volunteer evidence that the deal is being misdescribed or that it won't be enforced, you can honestly say that you haven't seen any. What a convenient position!
We all know who's lying... The guy who's track record is constantly lying.. your boss.
Ouch but true - he is the Elon of AI.
Isn’t Elon the Elon of AI?
> Whether Anthropic’s clear mistreatment means that all other companies should refrain from doing business with the US government isn’t as clear to me.
You're conflating the Trump administration and their fascist tendencies with all US government. You want to work for fascists if you get paid well enough. You can admit that on here.
Friend, this reads like that situation where your paycheck prevents you from seeing clearly - I forget the exact quote. Sam doesn't play a straight game and neither does the administration - there are more than a few examples.
Never try to convince someone of something they're paid to not believe.
Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”
OpenAI should not be agreeing to any contract with DOD under these circumstances of Anthropic being falsely labeled a supply chain risk.
The problem is, the vague safeguards are not worth anything.
"we will comply with US law" The problem is, the US government does not actually comply with US law.
That’s not evidence. You’re effectively saying “trust me bro” without a shred of proof to backup your claims.
I agree with what you're saying, but given the egos involved in the current admin there's a practical interpretation:
1. Department of War broadly uses Anthropic for general purposes
2. Minority interests in the Department of War would like to apply it to mass surveillance and/or autonomous weapons
3. Anthropic disagrees and it escalates
4. Anthropic goes public criticizing the whole Department of War
5. Trump sees a political reason to make an example of Anthropic and bans them
6. The entirety of the Department of War now has no AI for anything
7. Department of War makes agreement with another organization
If there was only a minority interest at the department of war to develop mass surveillance / autonomous weapons or it was seen as an unproven use case / unknown value compared to the more proven value from the rest of their organizational use of it, it would make sense that they'd be 1) in practice willing to agree to compromise on this, 2) now unable to do so with Anthropic in specific because of the political kerfuffle.
I imagine they'd rather not compromise, but if none of the AI companies are going to offer them it then there's only so much you can do as a short term strategy.
Well at least we know now that the department of war is less capable than before. All because the big man shit his pants while Anthropic was in view.
That is pretty optimistic, i hope it is true, and just a miss-understanding.
But man, this blew up pretty fast for a miss-understanding in some negotiation. Something must have been said in those meetings to make anthropic go public.
These people are drunk on power. They have been running around dictating things to everyone so for someone to push back is pretty novel _and_ it will inspire (I hope) other people to push back.
>5. Trump sees a political reason
Like, they haven't paid me a bribe? That seems to be the only "politics" at play in Trumps head.
Nah, they just respectfully said no to their face, which prompted him to make a big threat display and post another message with caps and exclamation signs on social media.
It's all a test of loyalty, crucial for fascist regimes.
As an OpenAI employee, quitting wouldn't be a problem, as you have a much higher chance of being successful after quitting than anyone else. You could go to any VC and they would fund you.
This isn't even close to true. VCs aren't silly, and it's not the 2010-2015 days of free money any more. Having a big company on your resume is not enough to land your seed round. You need a product, traction, and real money revenue in most cases.
Oh no, principles with a price... what will they think of next. Obviously principles only matter when there is a price attached.
I mean, even if that's the case Facebook was hiring 100 Million$ just a few months ago though even poaching from OpenAI and I do think that these employees will always have an easier time getting a decent job offer from major companies in general as well. They may or may not be making the same money but, I do think that their morals have to be priced in as well.
Getting a job offer is very different to raising a funding round.
Yes I agree, I don't know the current VC market so I am not gonna comment about that but my point was that the OpenAI employees would still be considerably well off even if they switch jobs.
My point was I don't think that Money (whether from VC or taking Jobs from other massive AI employers) should be as important issue to them atleast imo.
And unless GP has a security clearance, they can't know for sure what OpenAI is allowing on classified networks.
Yeah, agreed. I probably wasn't going to delete my OpenAI account (ala the link that is also being upvoted on HN), it just seemed like a hassle vs ceasing to use OpenAI. But when the staff at OpenAI employ mental gymnastics, selective hearing, willful ignorance, or plain ignorance to justify compliance with manmade horrors, I think it's probably important to vote with our feet.
> Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that.
to be clear i think your assessment of this situation is likely, but it could also be the case that pete and co likes sam more than they do dario.
I was trying to make no particular call on the actual reason aside from pointing at how obviously not the real story and false the statements made so far are. What a knot you have to tie yourself into to seek out an explanation where OpenAI has not made an ethical compromise to stay in the game here. I can stretch and think of some ways but they are far from the simplest explanation.
Lots of responses below give the likely real reasons most of which are probably true in part, but my opinion is it's the primary reason all who is in and who is out decisions are made by the trump administration - fealty. Skills, value brought, qualifications, etc. none of that matter above passing frequent loyalty tests, appealing to ego, bribes (sorry, i mean donations). Imagine thinking "hey, we'll work towards fully autonomous killbots because our adversaries will get them too but the tech isn't strong enough to allow them loose yet" or "yes you can use our ai for your panopticon surveillance, but just not on our own citizens because that is illegal" are lefty woke stances but here we are. Dario failed the loyalty test, as anyone rational would.
Are you saying that everything so far in this administration has been 100% rational?
> while another agrees the the same terms that led to that
One of them needs to be investigated for corruption in the next few years. I’d have to assume anyone senior at OpenAI is negotiating indemnities for this.
> one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that
Never discount the possibility of Hegseth being petty and doing the OpenAI deal with the same terms to imply to the world that Anthropic is being unreasonable because another company signed a deal with him.
Or corruption, in which Trump/Hegseth are getting a kickback from OpenAI, but giving the money to Anthropic would be "worthless" to them.
And Sam is a habitual liar.
He literally just got community noted for lying. So much for a non-profit CEO or whatever it is now.
And an abuser, but they keep covering that one up.
Are you talking about his sister?
https://x.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770
If so, I believe the lawsuit is still going on. I'm personally withholding judgment on him on this matter since I don't know the details.
But it's easy to criticize and judge him on other stuff he's said in public.
>or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic
This one is very easy. Trump has a well established pattern of making a loud statement to make it appear he didn't lose, even when he did.
anthropic has nothing but a contract to enforce what is appropriate usage of their models. there are no safety rails, they disabled their standard safety systems
openai can deploy safety systems of their own making
from the military perspective this is preferable because they just use the tool -- if it works, it works, and if it doesn't, they'll use another one. with the anthropic model the military needs a legal opinion before they can use the tool, or they might misuse it by accident
this is also preferable if you think the government is untrustworthy. an untrustworthy government may not obey the contract, but they will have a hard time subverting safety systems that openai builds or trains into the model
Huh, that's an interesting and new perspective. I'd love to know what you mean by safety systems, and what OpenAI can do that Anthropic can't.
Source?
This is entirely nonsense.
- When has any AI company shipped "safeguards" that aren't trivially bypassed by mid bloggers? Just one example would be fine.
- The conventional wisdom is that OAI's R&D (including safety) is significantly behind Anthropic's.
- OpenAI is constantly starved for funding. They don't make money. They have every incentive to say yes to a deal that entrenches them into govt systems, regardless of the externalities
Surely the reason was the large sum of money?
> Cope and cognitive dissonance
There's a critical mass of Trump Derangement Syndrome in SV, as this site exemplifies almost daily. The amount of vitriol and hatred spewed here is not healthy, nor are those who spew it. It kills rational debate, nuance and leads to foolish choices like someone cutting off their nose to spite their face as the old saying goes.
The president of the United States sets the tone that hated without reason or explanation is the way the system works now. Belligerence and power are the currency.
Speaking to people's better angels as if it has a chance of influencing Trumps behaviour is a fool's errand. It's not derangement. His word is worthless.
[flagged]
You believe who ever said that?
(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
[1] https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
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?
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.
> 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.
Anthropic didn't want a kill switch, they wanted contractual guarantees (the kind you can go to courts for). This administration just doesn't want accountability, that's all.
It was OpenAI that said they prefer to rely on guardrails and less on contracts (the kind that stops the AI from working if you violate). The same OpenAI that was awarded the contract now.
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.
I think it's a bit more nuance than that. The government (however good or bad, just bear with me) already has oversight mechanisms and already has laws in place to prevent mass surveillance and policy about autonomous killing.
So the governments stance is "We already have laws and procedures in place, we don't want and can't have a CEO to also be part of those checks"
I don't think this outcome would have been any different under a normal blue government either. Definitely with less mud slinging though.
If you think a blue government would even consider threatening to falsely accuse a company of being a supply-chain threat in order to gain leverage in a contract negotiation, you're insane. There's nothing remotely normal about this, it's not something you see in any western democracy
>Definitely with less mud slinging though.
Government's free to not like the terms and go with another provider. That's whatever.
Government's not free to say, "We'll blow up your business with a false accusation if you don't give us the terms we want (and then use defence production act to commandeer the product anyway)". How much more blatantly authoritarian does it get than that?
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.
did we really need all this? Didn't the experiences with Ivy League Universities alreay prove it all out?
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
[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706321/means-of-con...
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.
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!
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.
Did Sam Altman say that he wouldn't allow ChatGPT to be used for fully autonomous weapons? (Not quite the same as "human responsibility for use of force".)
I don't want to overanalyze things but I also noticed his statement didn't say "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance." It said something that kind of gestured towards that, but it didn't quite come out and say it. It says "The DoW agrees with these principles, and we put them in our agreement." Could the principles have been outlined in a nonbinding preamble, or been a statement of the DoW's current intentions rather than binding their future behavior? You should be very suspicious when a corporate person says something vague that somewhat implies what you want to hear - if they could have told you explicitly what you wanted to hear, they would have.
But anyway, it doesn't matter. You said you don't think it should be used for autonomous weapons. I'd be willing to bet you 10:1 that you'll never find altman saying anything like "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons", now or any point in the future.
> you'll never find altman saying anything like "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons"
To be fair, Anthropic didn't say that either. Merely that autonomous weapons without a HITL aren't currently within Claude's capabilities; it isn't a moral stance so much as a pragmatic one. (The domestic surveillance point, on the other hand, is an ethical stance.)
They specifically said they never agreed to let the DoD use anthropic for fully autonomous weapons. They said "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"
Their rational was pragmatic. But they specifically said that they didn't agree to let the DoD create fully automatic weapons using their technology. I'll bet 10:1 you won't ever hear Sam Altman say that. He doesn't even imply it today.
Dario said in an interview with CBS that they're not against fully autonomous weapons but their technology is there yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTNHrq_4LU&t=17m47s
Not sure how that's relevant. I never said Dario was taking an ethical stand. I said they did not agree for Claude to be used for fully autonomous weapons. Now, compare that to OpenAI, whose agreement does allow fully autonomous weapons.
> it isn't a moral stance so much as a pragmatic one
Agreed, the moral stance is saying no to DoJ and the US government
You're not overanalyzing anything, you're using critical thinking dissecting company communications. Kudos
Does he do employee town halls where they could ask?
Mr. Less-than-Consistently-Candid strikes again
> My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons,
In that case, what on earth just happened?
The government was so intent on amending the Anthropic deal to allow 'all lawful use', at the government's sole discretion, that it is now pretty much trying to destroy Anthropic in retaliation for refusing this. Now, almost immediately, the government has entered into a deal with OpenAI that apparently disallows the two use cases that were the main sticking points for Anthropic.
Do you not see something very, very wrong with this picture?
At the very least, OpenAI is clearly signaling to the government that it can steamroll OpenAI on these issues whenever it wants to. Or do you believe OpenAI will stand firm, even having seen what happened to Anthropic (and immediately moved in to profit from it)?
> and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue competing on the basis of differing services and not differing scruples)
If OpenAI leadership sincerely wanted this, they just squandered the best chance they could ever have had to make it happen! Actual solidarity with Anthropic could have had a huge impact.
It looks most likely like Anthropic wanted the ability to audit model usage, where as OpenAI was fine with just an agreement.
Hegseths tweet strongly alluded to this, and the general terms of the agreement are not public, just the hot button ones.
Am I wrong to think that such an agreement is basically meaningless? OpenAI gets to say there are limits, the government gets to do whatever it wants, and OpenAI will be very happy not to know about it.
Bingo. You don’t have to read much into this if you remember how the DoD uses the word trust. In their world, a "trusted" system is one that has the power to break your security if it goes wrong. So when they say "unrestricted use," the likely meaning isn’t just fewer guardrails it’s that the vendor doesn’t get to monitor or audit how the system is being used. In other words, the government isn’t handing a private company visibility into sensitive operations.
"AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons". The statement from OpenAI virtually guarantees that the intention is to use it for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. If this wasn't the intention them the qualifier "domestic" wouldn't be used, and they would be talking about "human in the loop" control of autonomous weapons, not "human responsibility" which just means there's someone willing to stand up and say, "yep I take responsibility for the autonomous weapon systems actions", which lets be honest is the thinnest of thin safety guarantees.
Assuming this is real: Why do you think anthropic was put on what is essentially an "enemy of the state" list and openai didn't?
The two things anthropic refused to do is mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, so why do _you_ think openai refused and still did not get placed on the exact same list.
It's fine to say "I'm not going to resign. I didn't even sign that letter", but thinking that openai can get away with not developing autonomous weapons or mass surveillance is naive at the very best.
My understanding is that OpenAI's deal, and the deal others are signing, implicitly prevents the use of LLMs for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons because today one care argue those aren't legal and the deal is a blanket for allowing all lawful use.
Today it can't be used for mass surveillance, but the executive branch has all the authority it needs to later deem that lawful if it wishes to, the Patriot Act and others see to that.
Anthropic was making the limits contractually explicit, meaning the executive branch could change the line of lawfulness and still couldn't use Anthropic models for mass surveillance. That is where they got into a fight and that is where OpenAI and others can claim today that they still got the same agreement Anthropic wanted.
Why would you believe that? If that were the case what was the issue with Anthropic even about?
You, and your colleagues, should resign.
You tell me why an employee would believe something convenient to them continuing to receive their paycheck
Life is more than a paycheck. We should raise the bar a little IMO. Turning down money for good reasons is not something extreme we should only expect from saints.
Of course. Doesn't change the reality that this is why someone would accept a justification that a neutral would easily see as plainly dishonest. Anyway, this is why we need unions
> You, and your colleagues, should resign.
It would be better if everyone stopped doing business with OpenAI so these employees lose their stock value.
But of course neither of these things will happen.
Who still does business with open ai and why? They are usually 5th or sixth in the benchmarks bracketed below and above by models that cost less. This has been the case for quite some time. Glm is out for us government purposes I'd imagine, but if google agrees to the same terms I don't see why the us government would use open ai anyway. If google disagrees it would be rather confusing given the other invasions of privacy they have facilitated, but if they do then using open ai would make sense as all that would be left is grok...
Imo the more ethical thing is obstructionism. Twitter's takeover showed it's pretty easy to find True Believer sycophants to hire. Better to play the part while secretly finding ways to sabotage.
That quote comes to mind...It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Obviously nothing is going to make Teddy quit his cushy OpenAI job.
Why do you suppose OpenAI's deal led to a contract, while Anthropic's deal (ostensibly containing identical terms) gets it not only booted but declared a supply chain risk?
"domestic" "mass" surveillance, two words that can be stretched so thin they basically invalidate the whole term. Mass surveillance on other countries? Guess that's fine. Surveillance on just a couple of cities that happen to be resisting the regime? Well, it's not _mass_ surveillance, just a couple of cities!
>OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance
And the US Military is forbidden from operating on US soil, but that didn't stop this administration from deploying US Marines to California recently.
You're fooling yourself if you think this administration is following any kind of rule.
> I don't see why I should quit.
So, can you please draw the line when you will quit?
- If OpenAI deal allows domestic mass surveillance - If OpenAI allows the development of autonomous weapons - OpenAI no longer asks for the same terms for other AI companies
Correct?
If so, then if I take your words at face value:
- By your reading non-domestic mass surveillance is fine
- The development of AI based weapons is fine as long as there is one human element in there, even if it could be disabled and then the weapon would work without humans involved
- The day that OpenAI asks for the same terms for other AI companies and if those terms are not granted then that's also fine, because after all, they did ask.
I have become extremely skeptical when seeing people whose livelihood depends on a particular legal entity come out with precise wording around what does and does not constitute their red line but I find it fascinating nonetheless so if you could humor me and clarify I'd be most obliged.
This is not meant as a personal attack but this has got to be the most naive thing I've read.
Thank you for responding. Everyone wants to think they will “do the right thing” when their own personal Rubicon is challenged. In practice, so many factors are at play, not least of which are the other people you may be responsible for. The calculus of balancing those differing imperatives is only straightforward for those that have never faced this squarely. I’ve been marched out of jobs twice for standing up for what I believed to be right at the time. Am still literally blacklisted (much to the surprise of various recruiters) at a major bank here 8 years after the fact. I can’t imagine that the threat of being blacklisted from a whole raft of companies contracting with a known vindictive regime would make the decision easier.
The founders are all on a first name basis. I’m surprised no one has noted that Anthropic and OpenAI winning together by giving the world two different choices, just like the US does in its political landscape. In this circumstance, OpenAI wins the local market for its government and aligned entities (while having the free consumer by a matter of cost dynamic for that ideal customer profile which is vary broad and similar to Google’s search audience where most their revenue still depends), while Anthropic is provided the global market and prosumer market where people can afford choice by paying for it.
"B0tH SiDeS ArE ThE SAme!"
You should quit because the only reasonable thing for your leadership to have done is to refuse to sign any agreement with DoW whatsoever while it's attempting to strongarm Anthropic in this fashion.
It doesn't even matter if OpenAI is offered the same terms that Anthropic refused. It's absurd to accept them and do business with the Pentagon in that situation.
If you take the government at its word, it's killing Anthropic because Anthropic wanted to assert the ability to draw _some_ sort of redline. If OpenAI's position is "well sucks to be them", there's nothing stopping Hegseth from doing the same to OpenAI.
It doesn't matter at all if OpenAI gets the deal at the same redline Anthropic was trying to assert. If at the end of this the government has succeeded in cutting Anthropic off from the economy, what's next for OpenAI? What happens next time when OpenAI tries to assert some sort of redline?
What's the point of any talk of "AI Safety" if you sign on to a regime where Hegseth (of all people) can just demand the keys and you hand them right over?
> Given this understanding, I don't see why I should quit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
#1 weekend HN is not a sane place. #2 emotions are high. #3 for what it’s worth @tedsanders I understand where you’re coming from and I believe you’re making the right choice by staying or at least waiting to make a decision. Don’t let #1 and #2 hurt you emotionally or force you to make a rash decision you later regret.
Edit: I don’t work at OpenAI or in any AI business and my neck is on the chopping block if AI succeeds… like a lot of us. Don’t vilify this guy trying to do what’s right for him given the information he has.
> My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons
And you believe the US government, let alone the current one will respect that? Why? Is it naïveté or do you support the current regime?
> If it turns out that the deal is being misdescribed or that it won't be enforced, I can see why I should quit.
So your logic is your company is selling harmful technology to a bunch of known liars who are threatening to invade democratic countries, but because they haven’t lied yet in this case (for lack of opportunity), you’ll wait until the harm is done and then maybe quit?
I’ll go out on a limb and say you won’t. You seem to be trying really hard to justify to yourself what’s happening so you can sleep at night.
Know that when things go wrong (not if, when), the blood will be on your hands too.
You can't be this naive?
His point reeks of cope. But making a large amount of money would make anyone dumb, deaf, and blind. Also, I give a little leeway to people who are employees without executive decision-making power, as they do stand to have a lot to lose in situations like this.
It's probably how they are coping with the cognitive dissonance. I certainly feel for them, I don't know that I could easily walk away from a big pay package either without backup options when I have family to support and I'm not near retirement.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Ted, what do you think of your CEO’s statement: “the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.”
The evidence seems to overwhelmingly point in the opposite direction.
This seems like the kind of foolishness it takes a lot of money to believe. Anthropic blew up their contract with the Pentagon over concerns on lethal autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. OpenAI rushes in to do what Anthropic wouldn't.
If you think that means your company isn't going to be involved in lethal autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance... I don't really know what to tell you. I doubt you really believe that. Obviously you will be involved in that and you are effectively working on those projects now.
I can totally see why you should quit, but we see different things apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)
Aside from that unlikely read, this deal was still used as a pressure point on Anthropic, there's absolutely no way OpenAI was not used as a stick to hit with during negotiations.
What is your red line?
Anthropic is deemed a betrayer and a supply chain risk for actually enforcing their principles.
OpenAI agrees to be put in the same position as Anthropic.
It seems like you must actually somehow believe that history will repeat itself, Hegseth will deem OpenAI a supply chain risk too, then move to Grok or something?
There's surely no way that's actually what you believe...
Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming [1] does not play a role in your thinking:
I don't mean this in any way rude and I apologize if this comes accross as such but believing it won't be used in exactly this way is just naive. History has taught us this lesson again and again and again.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189650#47189970
How would OpenAI respond to China or Russia using OpenAI--or any AI--for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons?
You may have missed that no single word said or written by any of the current US government’s members can be believed.
What people don't understand is that domestic surveillance by the government doesn't happen and isn't needed. They know it's illegal and unpopular and for over two decades they have a loophole. Since the Bush administration it's been arranged for private contractors to do the domestic surveillance on the government's behalf. Entire industries have been built around creating "business records" for no other purpose than to sell them to the government to support domestic surveillance. This is entirely legal and why the DoW has been able to get away with saying things like "domestic surveillance is illegal, we don't do that" for over two decades while simultaneously throwing a shit fit about needing "all legal uses" if their access to domestic surveillance is threatened.
There's a big difference between "the government won't use our tools for domestic surveillance" (DoW/DoD/OpenAI/etc) and "we won't allow anyone to use our tools to support domestic surveillance by the government" (Anthropic)
Hegseth and the current Trump admin are completely incompetent in execution of just about everything but competent administrations (of both parties) have been playing this game for a long time and it's already a lost cause.
Listen, if the Government using it for legit and safe use cases wasn’t an issue, then they wouldn’t have complained about Anthropic’s language. Sam is just looking the other way and pretending for you employees.
Or Sam bribed the government to do this, which is also entirely possible.
I don't know you, so maybe you're actually for real and speaking on good faith here but honestly this and your other responses in this thread read exactly like "...salary depends on not understanding"
Please read about the imperial boomerang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang
At the next town hall ask them directly - you making assumptions here.
Coward.
Sometimes brevity is the heart of wit or whatever the line is.
Assuming this isn't a troll and you really think this, you should at least have the cojones to admit you're taking the blood money instead of trying to pretzel the truth so hard that you just look like a moron instead.
To me it looks weird that a replacement won't accept Dept of War terms. This was the source of the dispute so...
I do not know but I would not very optimistic about those new terms.
For the record I don’t care if you quit or not. Cash rules after all… However, you are incredibly naive if you think the current admin will follow through on those terms.
These sort of agreements are easily bypassable, especially on such tools.
Someone might just create a spawn of openai with a tag and do all the stuff there...
There is no much guarantee I think
You're paid to look the other way. At least, own it.
Bad timing to be defending OpenAI's collaboration with the military as it launches an illegal bombing campaign.
I won't trust a word coming from Sam Altman's mouth until I see official signed documents (which I won't).
You should’ve stopped at don’t trust a word out of his mouth.
I have a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you if you believe this.
Standing up for whats right often is not easy and involves hard choices and consequences, your leader has shown you and the world that he is not to be trusted.
I can't tell you what to do but I hope you make the right decision.
Looks to me like you have decided that you are being paid to shut up and take the word of the most thoroughly dishonest and corrupt US government we've yet seen. Why on God's slowly-browning green earth do you trust that Altman got the deal Anthropic was trying for?
Your work will be used to power an auto aim kill bot. I personally couldn't live with that.
Well, not everyone is born with a spine.
lol, naive as hell. why would your company's agreement be the same as the one who just refused the _same_ agreement? Even my question doesn't even make sense, this is a contradiction, therefore your statement must be false. There, it's proven
Right beautifying lies are always going to head in the direction of doing whats self interested.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
You can make blood money but you have to be aware it's blood money. Don't delude yourself in to thinking you work for an ethical or moral company.
Can you at least stop lying to yourself? Given what they did with Anthropic for not supporting domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons...
> My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons
Your understanding is entirely wrong. At least stop lying to yourself and admit that you are entirely fine with working on evil things if you are paid enough.
I know the money is good, but if I were you (or any OpenAI employee), I'd move over to Google or Anthropic posthaste.
Is it really worth the long-term risk being associated with Sam Altman when the other firms would willingly take you and probably give you a pay bump to boot?
It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would want to associate themselves with Altman. He is universally distrusted. No one believes anything he says. It's insane to work with a person who PG, Ilya, Murati, Musk have all designated a liar and just general creep.
Defending him or the firms actions instantly makes you look terrible, like you'll gladly take the "Elites vs UBI recipients" his vision propagates.
Shame on you people. What a disgusting vision.
You work for a company that’s part of the Trump, Ellison, Kutchner orbit of corruption.
Y’all are developing amazing technology. But accept reality and drop whatever sense of moral righteousness you’re carrying here. Not because some asshole on the internet says so, but for your own mental health.
there is a recent post about how one of the top OpenAI exec has given 25 million$ to a Trump PAC before publicly supporting Anthropic/signing this deal.
One got characterized as supply chain risk and so much for OpenAI to get the same.
And even that being said, I can be wrong but if I remember, OpenAI and every other company had basically accepted all uses and it was only Anthropic which said no to these two demands.
And I think that this whole scenario became public because Anthropic denied, I do think that the deal could've been done sneakily if Anthropic wanted.
So now OpenAI taking the deal doesn't help with the fact that to me, it looks like they can always walk back and all the optics are horrendous to me for OpenAI so I am curious what you think.
The thing which I am thinking OTOH is why would OpenAI come and say, hey guys yea we are gonna feed autonomous killing machines. Of course they are gonna try to keep it a secret right before their IPO and you are an employee and you mention walking out of openAI but with the current optics, it seems that you/other employees of OpenAI are also more willing to work because evidence isn't out here but to me, as others have pointed out, it looks like slowly boiling the water.
OpenAI gets to have the cake and eat it too but I don't think that there's free lunch. I simply don't understand why DOD would make such a high mess about Anthropic terms being outrageous and then sign the same deal with same terms with OpenAI unless there's a catch. Only time will tell though how wrong or right I am though.
If I may ask, how transparent is OpenAI from an employees perspective? Just out of curiosity but will you as a employee get informed of if OpenAI's top leadership (Sam?) decided that the deal gets changed and DOD gets to have Autonomous killing machine. Would you as an employee or us as the general public get information about it if the deal is done through secret back doors. Snowden did show that a lot of secret court deals were made not available to public until he whistleblowed but not all things get whistleblowed though, so I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
Your response is a perfect encapsulation of "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I think its wrong for someone to ask someone to resign but acting that there is no issue here is debating in bad faith.
“ It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
You’re being purposefully niave if you trust any government and especially this government to behave legally or ethically.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Why would you trust anything out of Sam's mouth? He's a sociopath. Is that lost on you?
The comment perfectly exemplifies the kind of person that would work at OpenAI. Government AI drones could be executing citizens in the streets but they’d still find some sort of cope why it’s not a problem. They’ll keep moving the goalposts as long as the money keeps coming.
So its ok as long as its not domestic. Got it
You are naive, and assisting a fascist regime.
What a joke
insane cope
Scam Altman already got community noted btw
OpenAI employees put knives on their own necks to demand Altman to get back and be their boss [1], not too long ago, right? Altman wiggles his tongues and makes them a solid paycheck. "We will not be divided," unless the water boils slow enough. Wait for a few months, he will renegotiate the terms with DoD, just like his move to turn OpenAI into a for-profit.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-al...
i don’t get it. what’s his motive in your view? he literally has no shares in openai.
Maybe he just wants power? Some people are just evil and don't need greed to fuel their evil ways.
even marvel villain thanos was given a plausible motivation.
i don’t think if you actually knew him as a person you’d think this was a reasonable perception.
[dead]
Didn't the safety-conscious employees already leave when OpenAI fired Sam Altman and then re-hired him?
In my mind the only people left are those who are there for the stocks.
In all seriousness, what’s the average tenure at OpenAI and how much of the company in March 2026 was even around for that?
It's comforting to know that some of the brightest minds of our generation are going to work at OpenAI, then quitting a few months later horrified, only to post a short mysterious tweet warning everyone of the dangers ahead. So much for alignment and serving humanity.
And they will continue to work for Google / Meta et al to use novel AI techniques to sell us more and better ads, only to quit a few years later to do more soul searching where everything went wrong /s
Review the signers https://notdivided.org
They've been deleted. For obvious reasons. You want to take a stand but you don't want to stop working for the people who do the things you don't want to do. It's all so very american. I'll put my name on but if it doesn't work remove my name so I don't get into trouble ok? Home of the brave.
What are you on about? The names are still there.
And h1 slaves
> Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.
But they did.
"Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement."
The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that. In both cases, the two parties can claim to agree on the principles, but when push comes to shove, who decides on whether the principles are violated differs.
This. Sam is going to pretend they aren’t going to use it for that because his company is collapsing in losses. He will never audit.
Probably also got assurances about a bailout when OpenAI collapses.
> The difference is that Anthropic wanted to reserve the right to judge when the red lines are crossed, while OpenAI will defer to the DoD and its policies for that.
You learned this where?
I’m reading between the lines of the involved parties’ various statements, but there’s also this: https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
> I’m reading between the lines of the involved parties’ various statements
You should have said this.
> https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
Thank you.
It was pretty clear from Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements that they didn’t disagree on the two exclusions, but on who would be the arbiter on those. And Sam’s wording all but confirms that OpenAI’s agreement defers to DoD policies and laws (which a defense contract cannot prescribe), and effectively only pays lip service to the two exclusions.
From the referenced tweet;
who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems.
Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t do.
And the US government should have precisely none of that, regardless of whether they’re red or blue.
> Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t do.
I don't think that's the case. Amodei is worried that AI is extraordinarily capable, and our current system of checks and balances is not adequate yet to set the proper constraints so the law is correctly enforced. Here's an excerpt from his statement [1]:
Let's do this thought exercise: how long would it take you, using Claude Code, to write some code to crawl the internet and find all the postings of the HN user nandomrumber under all their names on various social media, and create a profile with the top 10 ways that user can be legally harassed? Of course, Claude would refuse to do this, because of its guardrails, but what if Claude didn't refuse?[1]https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
And that’s where the authoritarian in you is shining through.
You see, Obama droned more combatants than anyone else before or after him but always followed a legal paper trail and following the book (except perhaps in some cases, search for Anwar al-Awlaki).
One can argue whether the rules and laws (secret courts, proceedings, asymmetries in court processes that severely compress civil liberties… to the point they might violate other constitutional rights) are legitimate, but he operated within the limits of the law.
You folks just blurt “me ne frego” like a random Mussolini and think you’re being patriotic.
SMH
> Amodei is the type of person who thinks he can tell the US government what they can and can’t do.
> And the US government should have precisely none of that, regardless of whether they’re red or blue.
This is a pretty hot take. "You can't break the law and kill people or do mass surveillance with our technology." fuck that, the government should break whatever laws and kill whoever they please
I hope you A: aren't a U.S. citizen, and B: don't vote.
If I'm selling widgets to the government and come to find out they are using those widgets unconstitutionally and to violate my neighbors rights you can be damn sure I'm going to stop selling the gov my widgets. Amodei said that Anthropic was willing to step away if they and the government couldn't come to terms, and instead of the government acting like adults and letting them they decided to double down on being the dumbest people in the room and act like toddlers and throw a massive fit about the whole thing.
> It was pretty clear from Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements that they didn’t disagree on the two exclusions, but on who would be the arbiter on those.
No. Altman said human responsibility. Anthropic said human in the loop.
> And Sam’s wording all but confirms that OpenAI’s agreement defers to DoD policies and laws (which a defense contract cannot prescribe), and effectively only pays lip service to the two exclusions.
All but confirmed was not confirmed.
I don’t understand your first comment. At that point, Altman’s tweet didn’t exist yet, and is immaterial to the reading of Anthropic’s and Hegseth’s statements.
To your second comment, it was clear enough to me to be the most plausible reading of the situation by far.
We state what we think the situation is all the time, without explicitly writing “I think the situation is…”.
[dead]
Seems Anthropic did not understand the questions they were asked. From the WaPo:
>A defense official said the Pentagon’s technology chief whittled the debate down to a life-and-death nuclear scenario at a meeting last month: If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?
>It’s the kind of situation where technological might and speed could be critical to detection and counterstrike, with the time to make a decision measured in minutes and seconds. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei’s answer rankled the Pentagon, according to the official, who characterized the CEO’s reply as: You could call us and we’d work it out.
>An Anthropic spokesperson denied Amodei gave that response, calling the account “patently false,” and saying the company has agreed to allow Claude to be used for missile defense. But officials have cited this and another incident involving Claude’s use in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as flashpoints in a spiraling standoff between the company and the Pentagon in recent days. The meeting was previously reported by Semafor.
I have a hunch that Anthropic interpreted this question to be on the dimension of authority, when the Pentagon was very likely asking about capability, and they then followed up to clarify that for missile defense they would, I guess, allow an exception. I get the (at times overwhelming) skepticism that people have about these tools and this administration but this is not a reasonable position to hold, even if Anthropic held it accidentally because they initially misunderstood what they were being asked.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260227182412/https://www.washi...
"It’s the kind of situation where technological might and speed could be critical to detection and counterstrike"
Missile detection and decision to make a (nuclear) counterstrike are 2 different things to me but apparently the department of war wants both, so it seems not "just" about missile detection.
Is there any reason at all to believe the account of the unnamed "defence official"? Whatever your position on this administration, you know that it lies like the rest of us breathe. With a denial from the other side and a lack of any actual evidence, why should I give it non-negligible credence?
It is bizarre. I like how, "past performance predicts future performance" is supposed to apply to founders and companies but completely disregarded for a two term president and admin, as if we have no idea how they will operate in the future.
Anthropic, with its current war chest, is supposedly employeeing lawyers that are misunderstanding the Department of War? This is considered to be the likelier of possibilities, am I understanding this correctly?
This is not what I said, and not what the WaPo quoted. We're talking about the CEO, who is shall we say unfamiliar with war making, getting asked a hypothetical about how the product he sells would perform in a first strike scenario, and he reportedly gives what is an entirely legalese answer. Yes, I consider this a likely possibility. It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.
> It sounds exactly like how someone would respond if they've been swimming in legal memos for months.
I think you're being highly speculative. The part you quoted from the WaPo doesn't even state the defense official was complaining about about any "legalese" reponse, that seems like a projection on your part. The only info you gave in your comment about what Dario said is only a defense official's paraphrasing. It seems a simply case of Dario refusing to give a blank check in all scenerios whereas the defense official, for maximum impact, chose to portray "not having a blank check" as "having to call Anthropic" in every case where "help" is given by an LLM. The appearance of "misunderstanding" you're seeing in the media is not about the parties' misunderstanding of what the other side wants, it's simply a fallout from each side fighting to control the narrative.
Anonymous sources are bad again. Glad we could clear that up.
That's a copout and you know it. You're focusing on the 'unnamed' part; I'm focusing on the 'representative of an administration that lies constantly and brazenly' part.
Noted Rationalist responds to a question about a first strike scenario with "I need to think about it" instead of "of course we'd launch the missiles, are you kidding?" and everyone here seems to think this is somehow unbelievable.
You're still dancing around the point. Person A said X; person B said not X; we have no concrete evidence either way. Person A is an anonymous representative of a group that has no norms against dishonesty, an obvious motive to falsely claim X, and a track record of telling frequent, shameless lies. X doesn't need to be 'unbelievable' for me to ask, again, what positive reason do you have for believing it?
Why the fuck would you use an LLM to determine whether a nuclear missile was hurtling towards you? The question makes no sense, and so you get a nonsensical answer.
Seems not unlikely that Anthropic was manipulated into this position for purposes of invalidating their contract.
> If an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched at the United States, could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?
I'm sorry but lol
Are you serious? This is the kind of thing you'd ask a clarifying question on and get information back immediately. Further, the huge overreaction from Hegseth shows this is a fundamental disagreement.
The flip side of "Hegseth is an unqualified drunk", a position which I've always held and still maintain, is that he very well might crash out over nothing instead of asking clarifying questions or suggesting obvious compromises. This is the same guy who recalled the entire general staff to yell at them about the warrior mindset. Not an excuse for any of this, but I do think the precise nature of the badness matters.
> could the military use Anthropic’s Claude AI system to help shoot it down?
What a joke. I suggest folks read up on the very poor performance of US ICBM interceptor systems. They're barely a coin flip, in ideal conditions. How is Claude going to help with that? Push the launch interceptor button faster? Maybe Claude can help design a better system, but it's not turning our existing poor systems into super capable systems by simply adding AI.
I'm sure it's a matter of interpretation. Anthropic thinks the DoW's demands will lead to mass surveillance and auto-kill bots. The DoW probably disagrees with that interpretation, and all OpenAI needs to do is agree with the DoW.
My bet is that what the DoW wants is pretty clearly tied to mass surveillance and kill-bots. Altman is a snake.
Why do you choose to call it the "DoW"? Its official name is the Department of Defense, it was titled that way by Congress and only Congress can change it. What is your motivation in using a term that the current administration has started to use? Do you also use the Gulf of America when referrring to the body of water that defines the southern edge of the USA?
Don't you think it is more to-the-point to call it what it is and what the people running it with, i'll bet everything i have, absolute immunity, are doing and intend to do with it?
It's like the one honest thing they've done
It is "honest" in the historical sense, certainly.
But the executive-order driven name change just another bit of illegal/extra-legal/paralegal behavior by the administration that, every time we just nod along, eats away at the constitutional structure of our government. So don't go along with it.
Personally, as someone coming from a region that has suffered many times over by the actions of this so called "Ministry of Defense," I feel like "Department of War" is a more accurate and honest term.
As I've noted multiple times here on HN, I don't disagree with this.
But the question is not about whether it is a more accurate and honest term. It is about people complying in advance with the illegal/extra-legal renaming of a federal agency by a president who does not have the right or authority to do so.
If we were talking about Congress voting to rename the DoD as the DoW, I'd have nothing to say on the matter that differed from your observation.
Yeah that's fair you guys should still call it DoD. I think I'm gonna stick to DoW from here on out though.
It's the term used by Sam Altman in the announcement. Maybe aim your anger there, to someone knowingly helping them in their attempt to turn the department into one of aggression.
The president changed it back to its original name with an executive order. The administration did not just start spontaneously using it.
No, the Department of War is the former name of the Department of the Army and nothing else. DoD is a new creation that includes the Army, historic Department of the Navy, and the other, post-WW2, new services.
"Changing it back" is completely ahistoric.
The president has no authority to do this. Federal departments and agencies are named by Congress, and even the Republicans in Congress have shown no interest in formalizing this.
The president can't change the law itself, but he can change the name they use.
The law defines the name they should be using
It's not like there is a law that says they have to use that name on their X account or what domain to use for their website or emails.
Sure, no such law that I know of. But there's also no law that suggests that anybody else needs to refer to the Department of Defense using terms that the president and his minions just made up out of thin air. I'm also arguing that going along with them, by itself, is harmful to a democratic government.
If someone is calling themselves a warmonger, they should be called a warmonger.
100%. But the names of US agencies are not the names of people, and not determined by individuals, even the warmongers.
The only more fitting name currently would be Department of Peace
Exactly this! Just like the Gulf of Mexico is still called the Gulf of Mexico, if we just ignore his ramblings and continue calling the department of defense, we undermine his whole point. If we fall for all their crap and just accept it, then we loose in the end. Any resistance to a Fascist government is good resistance. Anything that makes their life's a little shittier is good. Better that they go around having tantrums about how they renamed it but no one is paying attention.
> The DoW probably disagrees with that interpretation
Or perhaps, maybe, just a little maybe, DoW is getting absolutely excited about mass surveillance and kill-bots?
Not that this will matter on any individual level, but I canceled my ChatGPT subscription after this.
I didn't have much of an opinion of Altman before but now I think he's a grifting douche.
Human responsibility is not the same as human decision making.
And they are crossing the picket line, which honestly I was sure they would do, though I did expect it to take a bit longer.
This is too transparent even for sama.
>Human responsibility is not the same as human decision making.
this is going to end up being interpreted as "well, the president signed off on the operation. see - there's a human in the loop!" - is it?
That's precisely how I read it. They're weasel words delivered by the master weasel himself.
Anthropic has safeguards baked in the model, this is the only way to make sur it's harder for the DOJ to misuse it. A pinky swear from the DoD means nothing
Good ole Sammy has never lied
If your starting position is already that Sam Altman lies about everything that doesn't fit your preconceived positions, that doesn't seem like a very useful meaningful position to update.
The company started with a lie, it's in the name.
Ok, but he does
Yes.
Unrelated, but want to buy a bridge?
You could recoup your investment in a year by collecting toll. Expedited financing available on good credit!
Please don’t do this here.
[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47190644
I think it is like a loyalty test to an authority above the law (executive immunity) in order to do business. “If we tell you to do so, you may do something you thought was right or wrong.” It is like an induction into a faction and the way the decisions could be made. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything about “in practice in the future”, just that the cybernetic override is there tacitly. If the authority thinks they can get away with something, they will provide protection for consequences too. Some people more equal than others when it comes to justice for all, etc. There are probably alternative styles for group decision making…
> I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this
Well some may voluntarily leave, some will be actively poached by Anthropic perhaps and some I suppose will stay in their jobs because leaving isn't an easy decision to make.
> some I suppose will stay in their jobs because leaving isn't an easy decision to make.
Anyone who chooses to stay shouldn’t have signed the letter. What’s the point of doing it if you’re not going to follow through? If you signed the letter and don’t leave after the demands aren’t met, you’re a liar and a coward and are actively harming every signatory of every future letter.
[dead]
> The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
Do you mean the same OpenAI that has a retired U.S. Army General & former director of the NSA (Gen. Nakasone) serving on its board of directors?
I think the problem might actually be with reenforcing the red lines. The events of the last few weeks and this new deal only make sense if Anthropic was trying to find out how Palantir and the Pentagon had circumvented their restrictions to attempt to reenforce those restrictions like company actually concerned about the misuse of their product. OpenAI most likely came in with assurances that they wouldn't attempt to reinforce their restrictions.
Yes, what is implied in this episode is that all big companies that do AI development or provide computing for Ai are now signing for these very shady uses of their technologies.
>Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.
Have we been watching the same Trump admin for the last year? That sound exactly like something the government would do: pointlessly throw a fit and end up signing a worse deal after blowing up all political capital.
While that thought crossed my mind, someone in a sub thread of parent comment made a point: OpenAI made a statement about how "We insisted this be not be used in those ways and DoD totally says they won't". Which sounds to me like they ceded any hard terms oand conditions and are letting the DoD use it in "any lawful means" which is what Anthropic didn't stand for.
They seem moderately competent at doing blatant corruption ( https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/official-trump/ , Qatari jet, etc...). See jeffbee's comment below.
OpenAI is already doing mass surveillance, so nothing changes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/21/tumbler-ridge-...
Another plausible explanation that is familiar to a lot of people in other countries is banal corruption. Kick out one competitor on bogus allegations, then on the next day invite another one… what else that could be?
Have you seen the size of OpenAi employees comp?
Woolad theyll create the autonomous military robots themselves for that check.
This is not a turning point. This is the destination. Were you onboard the wrong train?
Easy: have no principles that money can't buy. That's the American Dream!
> I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment [...]
Sometimes money is more attractive than morality. So I guess money is the answer here.
It was just a ruse to figure out who to fire. Either resign on your own terms or get fired. Companies and government only have one loyalty, to themselves,
I few will leave. Most will look nervously at their (non-public) stock and their bank accounts, and continuing keeping on.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
The ones who signed are not the same as the ones who didnt sign and continue to work there, Id guess?
For all I know Sam Altman orchestrated this via well timed donations and whatever the hell contacts he has in government, Trump specifically seems to have taken the man
So using Anthropic’s own words to cover a power play or pulling relationships to see if they could get anthropic to balk at it.
> I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/openai/salaries
Money buddy, they never cared. They didn’t care when they went back on their safety and guidance boards, they didn’t care when they tried to push Altman out, and these employees won’t care when the first AI nuke launches. Money, money, money so they don’t think about it later. It’s the exact same reason Facebook employees have given us the other side of surveillance hell.
They were always in it just for the money.
The morals were just there while it was easy virtue signaling.
Same for almost all Google, Facebook, etc. Prove me wrong, please.
I would not discount how much of a factor, irrational human emotions play in negotiations. Dario is arrogant and pompous so probably wound Hegseth up the wrong way. Sam is much more charming and amenable so more able to get his way despite similar terms.
> I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there
um, easy -- everyone has a price. Some of the most highly-paid workers on the planet work there.
Pay me $5M/yr and there are a LOT of things I wouldn't do for $300k.
Makes sense.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
All of us can act too. Stop using the OpenAI models. Stop using the app. Design in other models no matter what. Screw these guys.
Do you expect that to work?
Its about network effect - The biggest issue is that ChatGPT is a household name like Google at this point. Everyone and their grandma knows it or are learning about it, while Claude is very well known in the tech circles. Getting tech people to switch is relativity easy (ignoring Enterprise contracts), but getting everyone else to switch is going to be very slow.
Honestly, the best thing to happen is that someone comes up with a new UI (think claw...like) that everyone starts using instead. A very cute, well integrated system that just works for everyone, has free tier, and has something that the others dont have.
It's a commoditized market so it doesn't hurt to try.
No, I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.
>> All of us can act too. Stop using the OpenAI models. Stop using the app. Design in other models no matter what. Screw these guys.
> Do you expect that to work?
Many years ago Tim O'Reilly (of book publishing fame) knew Apple would one day would become really big even though they were a small, niche player in the "PC" space as the time (2000s). How did he know that? By seeing what the 'alpha geeks' were doing: the folks that not just used tech, but were working at companies that were inventing the future. They were the ones where friends and families asked for advice. And the alpha geeks (at the time) were switch to MacOS X and telling their friends and family about it.
* https://www.oreilly.com/tim/archives/rationaledge_interview....
* https://www.wired.com/2006/05/tim-says-watch-alpha-geeks/
There's a good chance that if you're on HN, you're the person in your non-techies social group that many others ask for advice. You can potentially sway many people by your example and your advice.
Nah. It's possible that the agreement still supports the required terms.
There is more to this story behind the scenes. The government wanted to show power and control over our companies and industries. They didn’t need those terms for any specific utility, they wanted to fight “woke” business that stood up to them.
Supposedly OpenAI had the same terms as Anthropic (according to SamA). Maybe they offered it cheaper and that’s why they agreed. Maybe it’s all the lobbying money from OpenAI that let the government look the other way. Maybe it’s all the PR announcements SamA and Trump do together.
>Supposedly OpenAI had the same terms
"we put them into our agreement." is strange framing is Altman's tweet. Makes me think the agreement does mention the principles, but doesn't state them as binding rules DoD must follow.
None of those explanations are compatible with the pledge of solidarity in the We Will Not Be Divided letter.
I prescribe literally zero truth value to what Sam says. He will say whatever he needs to get ahead. It is honestly irritating to me that you and many others here seem to implicitly assume his messages are correlated with truth, doing his social engineering work for him, as if his word should adjust your priors even slightly.
I don't necessarily think he's lying, but there's so much obvious incentive for him to lie here (if only because his employees can save face).
Your comment reminded me that a blog post. It’s by the same guy that wrote “programming sucks”. I’ve been sharing it a lot recently lol
https://www.stilldrinking.org/stop-talking-to-technology-exe...
> I don't necessarily think he's lying
He doesn't even need to be lying, the comment is vague and contains enough loopholes that it could be true yet meaningless. I explained some that I noticed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47190163
I'm not sure if I'd go down to zero, but he did get fired from OpenAI for lying.
And fired from YC for lying. And lied to investors about how many Loopt employees he had. And lied about having 100x the actual number of users when he sold it. And lied to employees about the Microsoft deal. And lied to his safety team.
It's this simple: Trump is a criminal. Larry Ellison is his pal. Sam Altman has a huge deal for cloud services from Oracle. Trump is using the DoD budget to backstop Ellison's business.
This is pretty much on the right take on it, although it's much more than that. It's very clear at this point, especially the first conclusion, but people insist in looking to the other side.
Interesting thesis.
But regardless of the moral implications, will this improve America’s position on the global stage or further undermine it?
Only if you think that crime will somehow improve America. My opinion is that this is leading to its collapse, no matter how "powerful" they look.
Attempting to kneecap the breakout front runner of the major American AI companies to ensure the shittier, politically compliant one wins in the short term? Gee I wonder.
Anthropic is great but not the undisputed front runner.
I can also interpret this as Sam and the administration supporting accelerationism while Dario is more measured and wishes to slow things down.
For better or worse, outright nationalization of military related companies is common on a global scale. I plan to do my best to ensure this is a domestic catastrophe, and I hope we'll succeed, but I don't expect other countries to care much about varying levels of regime alignment between two billionaire American defense contractors.
[dead]
> Supposedly OpenAI had the same terms as Anthropic (according to SamA).
He said human responsibility. Anthropic said human in the loop.
And Anthropic refused to say any lawful purpose would be allowed reportedly.
Maybe Sam Altman said nicer things about Donald Trump. Maybe he promised that he would not revoke their API keys when Hegseth directs the military to seize ballots. Maybe he's jockeying for position to take over the government when AGI hits.
Ultimately, I don't know how much the specific reasons matter. Pete Hegseth must be removed from office, OpenAI must be destroyed for their betrayal of the US public, that's all there is to it.
1) Another OpenAI cofounder (Brockman) gave Trump’s superPAC the largest ever individual donation of $25m.
2) Trump’s son in law (Kushner) has most of his net worth wrapped up in OpenAI.
don't forget that Sama is a Thiel protege
> Trump’s son in law (Kushner) has most of his net worth wrapped up in OpenAI.
If true (too lazy to check but I honestly take your word for it), this should probably be bigger news. Not that the outright corruption when it comes to the highest position in the US Government constitutes news anymore, but because it puts the Government’s fight against Anthropic (and supposedly other potential OpenAI competitors) in a new light.
My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAI
But what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this?
For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provider?
Other folks have claimed that Anthropic planned to burn the contentious redlines into Claude's constitution.
Update: I have cancelled my subscriptions until OpenAI clarifies the situation. From an alignment perspective Anthropic's stand seems like the correct long-term approach. And at least some AI researchers appear to agree.
As people have repeatedly mentioned, if the War Department was unhappy with Anthropic's terms, they could have refused to sign the contract. But they didn't: they were fine with it for over a year. And if they changed their mind, they could've ended the contract and both sides could've walked away. Anthropic said that would've been fine. But that's not what happened either: they threatened Anthropic with both SCR designation and a DPA takeover if Anthropic didn't agree to unilateral renegotiation of terms that the War Department had already agreed were fine.
It's absurd, and doubly so if OAI's deal includes the same or even similar redlines to what Anthropic had.
it seems like oai deal does include the same red lines, plus some more, and the ability for oai to deploy safety systems to limit the use cases of the model via technical means
this seems strictly better than what anthropic had. anthropic has ruined their relationship with the US govt, giving oai a good negotiating hand
the oai folks are good at making deals, just look at all the complex funding arrangements they have
"OAI wins by playing the government's game" is such a catastrophically bad take.
> anthropic has ruined their relationship with the US govt, giving oai a good negotiating hand
You want to try defending this ridiculous statement a bit more thoroughly?
For a start, the designation by the government of a company as a supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. It may well be found to be arbitrary and capricious once the courts look at it. Business have rights too.
For another, why do you think OAI was able to make what looks like the same deal? Anthropic was willing to say yes to anything lawful up to their red lines, and it was still a no. Why turn around and give OAI exactly the same thing, unless it's not really what it looks like?
And Altman is always looking for the next buck.
All these supposedly impressive complex funding arrangements have OAI on the hook to firms like Oracle in the hundreds of billions of dollars. No indication at all how this unprofitable business will become a trillion dollar juggernaut.
you're right, supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. it's spite after talks have ended. it indicates a ruined relationship
the oai deal is similar, but it includes technical safeguards. I think anthropic would have wanted the oai deal
the deal was not only successful because the govt is rebounding. the miltary prefers boundaries to be technical, not contractual
they can try using it, and trust that it will only operate within its designed limits, where the output is reliable
technical barriers to misuse help prevent both accidental and bad-faith misuse. a contract allows both kinds of misuse, enforced only by lawsuits. filing in court to dispute the terms is not always allowed
> supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. it's spite after talks have ended.
No. It's unlawful abuse of power.
> the miltary prefers boundaries to be technical, not contractual
That's nice for the military. Meanwhile, Anthropic has the right to refuse the use of its IP without being subject to punishment by the government.
You seem to me to be irretrievably "deal-brained", and not at all concerned about the obvious abuse of power by the government here, or the constant display of bad faith by gov't officials.
Adding more to this, IIRC US Govt threatened to invoke laws which have never been used against an American company in the entire history of US over two conditions that were:
1. No global surveillance on citizens
2. No autonomous killing machines (essentially)
That was it, Anthropic was fine with everything else but they couldn't (in their conscience?) agree to these two things and just these two very reasonable demands caused the govt. to spiral so bad.
I am comparing the oai and anthropic deals. most of your comment isn't on that topic
if you believe the government acts in bad faith and is untrustworthy, why trust them to not violate the terms of a contract?
technical safeguards are more secure. the oai deal seems better
I think Altman probably rationalised it to himself by thinking that if he doesn’t do it, Musk/xAI will, and they give zero fucks about safety. So maybe he told himself that it’s better if OpenAI does it.
Is there a name for this phenomenon? I've taken to calling it "the nihilist's excuse"
I call it race to the moral bottom.
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8
I love it when I can guess what a video is before I click it. Exactly what I hoped it would be.
Similar to false dichotomy. "If we won't do it, <other evil guy> will".
In game theory, prisoner’s dilemma or maybe stag hunt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt
I think it’s called being a “shithead”
Knowing Sam, that's exactly what happened -- and the echo chamber inside OpenAI wouldnt dare to disagree
I feel that if xAI worked well for the job, it would have been already been selected.
yeah or he didn't even
[flagged]
It doesn’t have to be genuine concern, it may just be his internal narrative.
He allegedly raped his own sister. No charges have been brought against him.
Unless you're using an enterprise plan or pay per token, you're not hurting their business at all by cancelling. The consumer plans are heavily subsidised.
Cancelling is the only language these companies understand.
Even Disney couldn't ignore the mass cancellations after dropping Kimmel and Disney+ bearly turns over a profit.
It will hurt in future funding rounds if their subscriber metric is stalling or going backwards, regardless of how many of those subscriptions are profitable.
Does it matter? These AI companies need to be able to prove that users are willing to pay at all, even if they're not paying a profitable amount of money. If investors see that they're dumping money into something that's not selling, why continue to do so?
AI companies seem to be growth companies whose whole point seems to be that they are okay with extreme amounts of losses/lack of profitability so long as they grow a lot.
If you back down from using Chatgpt, you throw a wrench in their growth numbers.
I would consider training data could have important info as well and to be honest, with their circular financing, Nvidia <-> openAI with GPU's being the main cost (and given that OpenAI isn't facing the Ram crisis heck it created the ram crisis by pre-ordering 20%) and recent deals, money isn't an issue to them for some time now. Growth is.
You are also forgetting that OpenAI is planning to add ads in which case you would be the product, its better not to discourage anyone who wishes to cancel perhaps.
Other commentators have made some good points as well and I used to think the same thing as you but I do think that cancelling might make the most sense.
That or if you want to cause maximum damage, trying to burn the most tokens that you physically can asking random things to burn OpenAI's money but remember that the model still takes energy requirements so you'd be wasting energy for something quite pointless.
IMO, it might be better to cancel/not use OpenAI.
I think their consumer plans are gross margin positive but OpenAI has ~50M paying subscribers driving >$10B in revenue.
Realistically, you need at least ~1M subscribers to cancel to make this painful.
But I suspect this will get drowned out in the face of other news.
There is value tied to free users, but also, not sure I want my work and data in a product that’s OK with DoD mass surveillance and I’m not sure my customers would want their data pumping through it either.
This is ultimately about drawing moral lines, isn't it? In that case it wouldn't matter if it hurts their business or not.
More details on the difference between the OpenAI and Anthropic contracts from one of the Under Secretaries of State:
>The axios article doesn’t have much detail and this is DoW’s decision, not mine. But if the contract defines the guardrails with reference to legal constraints (e.g. mass surveillance in contravention of specific authorities) rather than based on the purely subjective conditions included in Anthropic’s TOS, then yes. This, btw, was a compromise offered to—and rejected by—Anthropic.
https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027566426970530135
> For the avoidance of doubt, the OpenAI - @DeptofWar contract flows from the touchstone of “all lawful use” that DoW has rightfully insisted upon & xAI agreed to. But as Sam explained, it references certain existing legal authorities and includes certain mutually agreed upon safety mechanisms. This, again, is a compromise that Anthropic was offered, and rejected.
> Even if the substantive issues are the same there is a huge difference between (1) memorializing specific safety concerns by reference to particular legal and policy authorities, which are products of our constitutional and political system, and (2) insisting upon a set of prudential constraints subject to the interpretation of a private company and CEO. As we have been saying, the question is fundamental—who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems.
> It is a great day for both America’s national security and AI leadership that two of our leading labs, OAI and xAI have reached the patriotic and correct answer here
https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
Even this most-charitable-possible (to DoW) explanation does not even come close to justifying the supply chain risk designation. It is absolutely enough (and honestly more than enough) for a contract cancellation and a switch to a competitor. DoW could have done that for any reason at all, or no reason at all. If they had issues with Anthropics terms, they 100% should have done that.
Nothing in the quoted text comes anywhere close to the realm of justifying the retaliatory actions.
The DoW is engaging in simple crybullying. In my time as an online moderator I see it all the time.
“You are impinging on my freedom to force you to participate in activities you have expressly indicated it is against your will to engage in! You bully! I am such a victim!”
https://xcancel.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070?s=20
This is endemic of the entire current administration. It is as disappointing as it is unsurprising.
I find myself totally agreeing with the quoted text and also this sentiment. It just makes no sense to nuke Anthropic as a negotiation tactic if your interest is in preserving the republic long term.
AFAIK, the U.S. government is fully entitled to serve them under the U.S. Department of War’s terms as per the Defense Production Act. The government has yet to do this, but a company acting in a way that the Department of War perceives as benefiting enemy states could certainly be a justification for declaring a supply chain risk. Anthropic’s decision timing as the U.S. has launched a war in the Middle East to save millions of Iranian lives (tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iranians have already been killed by the Islamic Regime) definitely seems to be unjustifiable and the U.S. Department of War (so weird for me to type that instead of DOD) was smart, in my opinion, not to force Anthropic to work with them but to drop all work with them and move to providers who will meet the military’s needs while at war.
(Just in case anyone was wondering, I live in Israel)
> not to force Anthropic to work with them but to drop all work with them and move to providers who will meet the military’s needs while at war.
Conversely, I’m glad that we’re looking a little further than that, and are worried about what happens after this missile exchange. After living through an endless “global war on terror” that gave us the biggest mass surveillance enabling act, it’s hard to not dismiss “it’s just until the end of this war, and we promise it’ll end well!”
> Anthropic’s decision timing as the U.S. has launched a war in the Middle East [...]
According to Anthropic, their terms have been in their contract from the beginning. The only decision they made recently is not to be strong-armed into renegotiating their contract to allow things they don't want to allow. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
> a company acting in a way that the Department of War perceives as benefiting enemy states could certainly be a justification for declaring a supply chain risk.
What’s the difference between a company not building something that’s fit for purpose for fighting a war (like a nursery refusing to build land mines), and thus not being a qualified supplier to the Government for conducting military operations, vs. being tarred with the “supply chain risk” brush? The former seems uncontroversial; the latter seems petty and retaliatory. “Supply chain risk” designations are for companies that you would do business with but might be compromised by the enemy, like when a supplier agrees to provide the DoW grenades, but the grenades could be intentionally defective such that they detonate prematurely in the soldier’s hand.
Besides, as an Israeli, imagine a world in which the manufacturers of Zyklon B refused to sell Hitler their product for the purposes of gassing human beings. It might not have prevented the Holocaust, but at least maybe impeded it a little.
Apropos to this controversy, this story appeared yesterday—after 31 years following the Balkan wars, Croatia finally eliminated the last land mine: https://glashrvatske.hrt.hr/en/domestic/croatia-declared-fre...
>Besides, as an Israeli, imagine a world in which the manufacturers of Zyklon B refused to sell Hitler their product for the purposes of gassing human beings. It might not have prevented the Holocaust, but at least maybe impeded it a little.
Honestly, if the Holocaust was today, we would probably get 10% of comments here trying to defend "both sides". Some people have a need to try to defend every side, even if one of the sides it's asking for them to be murdered.
A government promise that they'll only do lawful things is not reassuring at all:
1. We've seen government lawyers write memos explaining why such-and-such obviously illegal act is legal (see: torture memo). Until challenged, this is basically law.
2. We've seen government change the law to make whatever they want legal (see: patriot act)
3. We've seen courts just interpret laws to make things legal
A contractor doesn't realistically have the power to push back against any of these avenues if they agree to allow anything legal.
(At the risk of triggering Godwin's Law, remember that for the most part the Holocaust was entirely legal - the Nazi's established the necessary authorization. Just to illustrate that when it comes to certain government crimes, the law alone is an insufficient shield.)
This is it exactly.
The DoW wants to only be beholden to the laws, and not to Anthropics TOS.
So the question is: do you trust the government to effectively govern its own use of AI? or do you trust Anthropic's enforcement of its TOS?
They DoW doesn't care about laws, that's the whole point. Anthropic did not believe the most law breaking administration in history when their drunkard incompetent leader said "lol trust us bro"
> More details on the difference...
Does the qualifier "domestic" for mass surveillance mean that OpenAI allows the use of its models for whatever isn't "domestic"?
You're quoting social media posts from a regime official who says he didn't participate in these negotiations and doesn't work for the relevant department.
If his characterization of the agreement is correct, which I will not believe and you should not believe until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text, I suppose this would convince me that Hegseth does not literally plan to build a Terminator for democracy-ending purposes. There's a lot of inexcusable stuff here regardless, but perhaps merely boycotting OpenAI and the US military would be a sufficient response if this all checks out.
> which I will not believe and you should not believe
It seems like you chose to immediately disbelieve it.
> until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text
If you've found one of these, let me know. I'm still looking...
I did choose to immediately disbelieve it. If a Trump regime official tells me something, and they could plausibly benefit from lying to me about it, I assume until proven otherwise that they're lying. They've earned this reputation through a large number of consequential and later disproven lies; my apologies to Mr. Lewin if he personally is an honest man, although I might encourage him to think about whether the good he's doing in his role is so important that it outweighs the lies he's providing cover for and the gradual erosion of his integrity.
> If you've found one of these, let me know. I'm still looking...
I do not assume, and I would recommend that you do not assume, that there is such a thing as a text of the contract. It's much easier to lie about contents of documents that don't actually exist yet. Then you can craft the text in response to public feedback, writing it down in early March and telling people that it's totally a copy of what was agreed to on February 27.
As a corollary, you should be skeptical of any purported text that is not widely published soon. If there is indeed such a contract, and it says what Altman claims, he will desperately want to ensure that his employees have read a "leak" of the text by Monday morning.
how I wish that "patriotic" meant something instead of just "did what we wanted". I'm so tired of living in an era where every communication made by every organization feels like a lie
It's only $200 from me for the remainder of the year but you're not getting it anymore OpenAI. Voting with my wallet tonight. Really sad, I've followed OpenAI for years, way before ChatGPT. It's just too hard to true up my values with how they've behaved recently. This sucks. Goodnight everyone.
I cancelled and deleted my account and I got an email immediately with a pro-rata refund. You can get that money back.
Same. Moving to Anthropic. At some point we can’t let the slide continue
Just cancelled my Plus plan as well. I will still wait to see how things play out before deciding if I'll delete my account altogether, but OpenAI's actions simply don't align with my values at the moment. Very disappointing.
It's been kind of downhill since the 2023 Altman firing and rehiring.
[flagged]
Won’t anyone think of the poor billionaires?
If the redlines are the same how'd this deal get struck?
ChatGPT maker OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthropic when it comes to working with the Pentagon, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed to CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/openai-has-same-redl...
Look more carefully at what sam altman satd : he did not say he won't remove technical safeguards against surveilance and autonomous killing, instead he said "We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should"
> We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should
How surprised should I be that a government who’s consistently railed against “woke AI” isn’t caring about that?
You're expecting logic from the Trump administration and that's not really how they do things. Maybe it was never about the redlines? Maybe they decided Anthropic was their enemy, and that was their excuse.
Anthropic was too public about being “good”. And if there is one thing the Trump admin cannot abide it’s morality.
deals are based on personal relationships, not abstract logic
huh? the same deal was offered to anthropic who decided not to take it.
This is not true. A different deal was offered to Anthropic, and they refused. Then the DoW turned around and went with OpenAI even though their terms weren’t materially different from the terms of their agreement with Anthropic.
[flagged]
All OpenAI employees during the board revolt that vouched for sama's return are personally responsible.
OpenAI employees revolted for their millions worth of stock, not for principle.
Anyone thinking they have any virtue is naive.
Just uninstalled the app and canceled subscription. OpenAI can't justify their insane valuation without an user base. Especially when there are capable models elsewhere.
I'm never using an OpenAI model or Codex ever again. Period. Idaf whether it scores better than Claude on benchmarks or not.
This is a red line for me. It's clear OpenAI has zero values and will give Hesgeth whatever he wants in exchange for $$$.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/openai-reaches...
So they agreed to the same red lines that had earlier led to the fallout with Anthropic? Kind of strange.
I bet Sam secretly pledged to DoD that the red lines were only temporary, for optics and to calm employees at the all hands meeting.
A few months down the line, OpenAI will quietly decide that their next model is safe enough for autonomous weapons, and remove their safeguard layer. The mass surveillance enablement might be an indirect deal through Palantir.
Very possible, double speaking is Sam Altman's specialty.
The fact they were able to strike a deal in the first place hours after Anthropic was declared a supply chain risk should make this obvious. Their employees are smart people, the only way they can reason past this is their compensation.
Apparently Sam was secretly negotiating with DoD since Wednesday. While publicly proclaiming solidarity with Anthropic. Just vile, and expected.
Sam saw Anthropic was getting too competitive. So he called his buddies in the gov to knock them down a peg.
That's very possible! In the last few days Anthropic was getting a lot of attention, and OpenAI was looking weaker in comparison. It seems like a politically coordinated job to remove competition.
For sure, he's been pissed that OpenAI no longer has the Mandate of Heaven and Claude is all anyone has been talking about since December. (And it's not just an ego thing: because OAI isn't profitable yet, they need the hype to keep going to raise money on favorable terms, so loss of buzz is an existential threat). I absolutely believe that he started making calls to try and get buddies in the White House to take Anthropic down.
I don't trust Sam to be telling the truth. It would be to his benefit to lie about this and make Anthropic look bad, so he of course would, even if it's not actually the case.
Hell, I would have thought it likely that anthropic was doing the same thing. Of course that was proven wrong, but for OAI I wouldn't even be guessing. This has always been what sama does.
Well you know how it goes... you need to read between the lines. I can agree with you on your "principles", but not enforce them myself.
It makes sense if you imagine the real motivation is “make sure the AI contracts go to my good friend Sam”, and all the red line stuff is just a way to pick a fight with Anthropic.
No, the difference is that the government agrees to no "unlawful" use as determined by the government.
Anthropic said that mass surveillance was per se prohibited even if the government self-certified that it was lawful.
Follow the money. There is a UAE sheik who bought 49% of Trump's World Liberty and is involved in OpenAI's Project Stargate:
https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/35909013656801
I'm sure more will drop in the coming months.
We need some kind of group like "tech people with morals". I'm done with these people and their corruption and garbage.
It's why I think "software engineer" is a misnomer. We don't have a license, we don't have an ethics code, we don't sign off on stuff. In other disciplines, an engineer could topple a project they feel is unsafe or against code, and be backed by their union if replaced. A software engineer just says yes if their stocks aren't vested, and will be replaced if not.
I just looked this up so might not be fully accurate but it seems most private sector “engineers” don’t require a license. You only need a PE license when providing a service to the public. That is quite a strict band on the title.
Might also be different between countries. But a bridge wouldn't be built without an engineer signing off on it being safe. A process change at a production facility would need an engineer to approve that the output still will follow specs etc
Where can I read more about all the licensed engineers toppling unethical military projects?
Not a group per se but I maintain an index of 'good' people in tech here, and their contraries - https://goodindex.org
Sam has -6/100? How does that work? If you can go into the negatives, how low can you get?
Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100. It is a baseline of 0, good actions make it go up, bad actions make it go down.
> Nowhere is it stated that it is a score out of 100.
It says it right on the homepage. Twice. Once for people, once for organisations. It’s right there in green: “BEST (SCORED OUT OF 100)”. And if you go into any of them, you see a score like N/100.
Found the methodology page, and it clarifies it goes from -100 to 100.
https://goodindex.org/methodology#:~:text=How%20Scoring%20Wo...
Yeah some new banner to organise around- the hard part is easily communicating you're an ethical technologist and finding others.
Also, it's probably tricky to find a Schelling point that a broad range of people can agree to.
* no military use
* no lethal use
* no use in support of law enforcement
* no use in support of immigration enforcement
* no use in mass surveillance
* no use in domestic mass surveillance (but mass surveillance of foreigners is OK)
* no use in domestic surveillance
* no use in surveillance
* require independent audits
* require court oversight
* require company to monitor use
* require company to monitor use and divulge it to employees
* some other form of human rights monitoring or auditing
* some other form of restriction on theaters/conflicts/targets
* company will permit some of these uses (not purport to forbid them by license, contract, or ToS) but not customize software to facilitate them
* company can unilaterally block inappropriate uses
* company can publicly disclose uses it thinks are inappropriate
* some other form of remedy
* government literally has to explain why some uses are necessary or appropriate to reassure people developing capabilities, and they have some kind of ongoing bargaining power to push back
It feels normal to me that a lot of people would want some of those things, but kind of unlikely that they would readily agree on exactly which ones.
I even think there's a different intuition about the baseline because one version is "nobody works on weapons except for people who specifically make a decision to work for an arms company because they have decided that's OK according to their moral views" (working on weapons is an abnormal, deliberate decision) and another version is "every company might sell every technology as part of a weapons system or military application, and a few people then object because they've decided that's not OK according to their moral views" (refusing to work on weapons is an abnormal, deliberate decision). I imagine a fair number of people in computing fields effectively thought that the norm or default for their industry was the latter, because of the perception that there are "special" military contractors where people get security clearances and navigate military procurement processes, and most companies are not like that, so you were not working on any form of weapon unless you intentionally chose to do so. But, having just been to the Computer History Museum earlier this week, I also see that a lot of Silicon Valley companies have actually been making weapons systems for as long as there has been a Silicon Valley.
There is definitely a muddle on so many levels about signaling and agreeing on ethics in technology.
But as innovation slows globally, it is implementation, ethics, and ideology that will once again be the dominant metrics of progress, so there's a new window emerging to push for this social/moral change in technology once again.
So it's still critically important that we actively work towards finding a meaningful, socially contagious differentiator other than "ethical technologist" even if it's difficult- look at what OpenAI gets away with under that flimsy banner.
It'd probably be kind of "big tent" and a bit fuzzy at the edges like most big movements are.
"Starting today I will be asking prominent members of the tech community to sign their name onto this. A code of conduct, authored by me, that pledges them to a universal ethos, which I created, that I call tech ethics or Tethics for short."
A union?
Unfortunately most engineers irrationally hate unions
Unions would’ve been useful at a time CEO’s are salivating at the idea of slashing jobs and replacing SWEs with AI.
I think it would still be useful. Call my cynical but gone are the days where the individual comp and benefits available to SWEs outweigh the benefits of collective bargaining.
[dead]
A guild. Control who learns the trade.
I do have morals and I would do the same.
This, honestly. Seeing all those billionaires on inauguration day lined up to kiss the ring was utterly pathetic. Like what is the fucking point of having billions of dollars if you're just going to be someone else's bitch. And for what? A couple more billion dollars. Oof
[dead]
I would put bets on the issue probably being that it was pointed out that Anthropic's models were used to assist the raid in Venezuela, Anthropic then aggressively doubled down on their rules/principles and the DOD didn't like being called out on that so they lashed out, hard.
If theres anything this admin doesn't like, its being postured against or called out by literally anyone, especially in public.
I don't even think Anthropic balked at being used to assist, as long as a human has the final say.
In an imaginary world, this would be a precursor to Anthropic coming to EU in a greater capacity and teaming up with Mistral, eventually leading to similar innovation and progress that DeepSeek forced upon the West, benefitting everyone in the long run. They seem to have the morals for it and the respect for human rights and life given their recent announcement (after some backtracking), unlike OpenAI. Sadly, that's not the real world.
I'd apply to work for Anthropic in a heartbeat if it was a European company.
Difference from Anthropic's deal is:
- OpenAI is ok with use of their AI for autonomous weapons, as long as there is "human responsibility"
- Anthropic is not ok with use of their AI for autonomous weapons
I think you guys are giving far too much attention to the "autonomous weapons" angle and not enough to the "spying on Americans" angle. It makes no sense to use an LLM to power an autonomous weapon. It does make a lot of sense to use an LLM to monitor communications and public social media profiles to create a list of "domestic terrorists" that they can then target. I'm willing to bet this is what the administration wanted to use Anthropic for.
Sure, and actually the open models are already good enough to do that, it's not like any company could stop any organization that can collect the data from doing this.
They can just improve on it a lot.
I had kept my Plus subscription just because I was lazy, and it was inexpensive and convenient… but this turn definitely helped me get off the fence. I am exporting and deleting my data now, and the cancellation is already done.
For anyone reading this later, I got my data export and deleted my account and got a pro-rated refund. So double whammy!
Do I understand this correctly:
An algorithm, an ML model trained to predict next tokens to write meaningful text, is going to KILL actual humans by itself.
So killing people is legal,
Killing people by a random process is legal,
A randomized algorithm deciding on who to kill is legal,
And some of you think you are legally protected because they used the word “domestic”?
Domestic means nothing, it’s like the company Daniel Ek invested in saying they won’t sell weapons to ”Democracies”, in the context of warfare and control these words are meaningless.
They will deploy this on a domestic scale and claim to use it to locate non-domestic threats. I can’t believe anyone is falling for this.
Is it possible the killing machine could hallucinate and kill some random, innocent person?
It's incredibly unlikely that it won't do exactly that, although we'll be very lucky if it's just that and not a random, innocent city
Verhoeven fans would simply call it "a glitch".
It's already happened in the Korean DMZ
I don't think you do?
Who said that any of it is legal? Keeping in mind that when the government does something, it usually takes more than 24h for there to be an official determination on whether they broke the law.
Well, DHS has shown this year that they won't show restraint when it comes to attacking American citizens. I would expect that trend to continue.
Killing people has been legal forever. But you have to do it at scale for it to be legal.
>human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems
So there’s the difference, and an erasure of a red line. OpenAI is good with autonomous weapon systems. Requiring human responsibility isn’t saying much. Theres already military courts, rules of engagement, and international rules of war.
Cancel your subscription. It's the least you can do.
Not a surprise here, that letter was a trap for OpenAI employees who filled it out with their names on it. [0]
The ones that did might as well leave. But there was no open letter when the first military contract was signed. [1] Now there is one?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47176170
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-mi...
At this stage, everything OpenAi does is to try to keep investors investing.
They’re willing to let their brand go to trash for this government contract.
Pretty much every American is standing with Anthropic on this. No one left or right wants mass surveillance and terminators. In fact, no one in the world wants this, except the US military.
But Altman seems so desperate to keep the cash coming he’s ready to do anything.
So does this mean that OpenAI will give whatever the DoD asks for and they will pinky swear that it won’t be used for mass surveillance and autonomous killing machines?
yes
and we know we can trust openAI because they were founded on "open" and "safe" AI (up until they realized how much money there was to be made, at which point their only value changed to "make money")
It’s amazing how quickly the players keep shifting here.
Yesterday and the day before sentiment seemed to be focused on “Anthropic selling out”, then that shifted to “Anthropic holds true to its principles in a David vs Goliath” and “the industry will rally around one another for the greater good.” But suddenly we’re seeing a new narrative of “Evil OpenAI swoops in to make a deal with the devil.”
Reminds of that weekend where Sam Altman lost control of OpenAI.
"There are decades where nothing happens and weeks where decades happen."
Sam is a player and honestly the more interesting one in the whole thing.
Mad respect to Sam, now I believe OpenAI have better chance to win in the race
> Mad respect to Sam
And people wonder how we got here.
He’s certainly solidified his place in the history of this era.
But I suspect the public sentiment will eventually turn against him. When society sets its pitchforks on big tech he’ll be the poster boy. A 21st century John D. Rockefeller.
Him, Musk, Bezos, and Zuck.
[flagged]
Invalidating most of society is such an interesting way to live a life on this planet.
Seems somewhere between very isolating and very narcissistic.
Hitler won the race in the 1930s too. Totally crushed it.
I considered that comparison, but in all seriousness, I’m not sure it’s apt.
Are he and his peers Hitler or they the naive oligarchs who think they can keep populist leaders and their constituencies under their thumb? Only to be out maneuvered by the people who the masses think have their back.
I know many folks who think their political leaders have the best interest at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know nobody who thinks tech leaders do. At best they want to be them.
absolute truth nuke and the hysteria around it is yet more evidence that HN is a negative signal.
anything HN countersignals, go long on.
Truth nuke? OK, you're now officially a troll account with your latest comments.
I'm unsure how to feel about this whole dust-up. It doesn't seem like much has changed in substance. Maybe OpenAI outmaneuvered Anthropic behind the scenes. Possibly Anthropic was seen as not behaving deferentially enough towards the government. But this administration has proven comically corrupt, so it wouldn't surprise me if money was involved. Will be interested to see what journalists turn up.
Let me reiterate some points for people here:
Income and revenue sources always, inevitably, and without fail, determine behavior.
I think your theory might be missing an extremely relevant and timely counterexample?
I have just canceled all services and deleted my account with OpenAI. They can get money from the current US regime but I will not contribute to their violations of the constitution.
Sam Altman being a complete bell end? Who'd have thought it.
I hope everyone goes and works for Anthropic and OpenAI collapses.
Markets going to be interesting on Monday. This plus a war. Urgh.
So this week we've learned that even the government asseses Anthropic has the better model, and that OpenAI leadership has no concern for safety whatsoever.
This is awkward? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188473
So they agreed to the exact same clauses that Anthropic put forward but with OpenAI instead?
So it wasn't about those principles making them a supply chain risk? They're just trying to punish Anthropic for being the first ones to stand firm on those principles?
I’m sure a big donor just used the US gov as a bludgeon to destroy their competition
Is the big donor among us?
Now that OpenAI is going to be used for mass domestic surveillance you can assume Sam Altman is always in the room.
As I understand it, Sam's cofounder at OpenAI donated $25 million to the Trump 2024 campaign.
As Trump himself likes to say, "Promises made, promises kept."
Anthropic would probably not renegotiate in a year about the principles, while Sam Altman is known to be morally flexible so OpenAI will almost surely allow the military to do what they want in the future. Sam Altman might even have said behind closed doors that these restrictions will be removed once the drama has died down.
What principals do Anthropic have?, they happily build a product and acknowledge it will lead to the loss of millions of jobs, particularly SWE's first, but shrug and say 'nothing we can do, we just build the thing', that will kill a lot of people.
[flagged]
Did anyone ever doubt sama would just follow the money?
weasels gonna weasel
Subscribers should be aware what they are supporting. I think that keeping an OpenAI account can be considered an active support of this decision, at least for private people who can easily change providers.
Absolute disgrace of a person and organization.
Sorry, despite the public statements of some sort of solidarity with Anthropic by sama this looks like a plot to take over from losing position.
Sadly it would be very difficult for Anthropic to relocate to another country with their IP, models, and infrastructure.
(Guess I need to build everything I intended this year in a weekend.)
Is the Pentagon signing a EULA confirming all their data will now be used, anonymised, for improving the service?
Obviously not? You know enterprise customers don't have the same EULA as consumers, right?
If the "safety stack" (guardrails) bit is true, it's the exact opposite of their beef with Anthropic... which is not surprising given who's running the US right now.
I always assumed those folks need a way to look strong with their base for a media moment over equitable application of the policies or law.
From an open non-profit to a war machine in such a short time is baffling.
They're pretending like they didn't enter into this agreement last January and are completely entrenched in intelligence programs already. They are trying to make it look like they are stepping up in a time of need (time of need for the DoD), in reality they sold their soul to intelligence and the military a year ago.
I posted about this here after Sam made his tweet:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189756
Source: https://defensescoop.com/2025/01/16/openais-gpt-4o-gets-gree...
I canceled my ChatGPT subscription and switched to Lumo Plus subscription https://lumo.proton.me/about I also considered https://mistral.ai/products/le-chat
Both are based in Europe but Proton Lumo has the better privacy promises.
Would be interested in experiences of others with those alternatives for question/answering type research (not for coding for which there exist other, better alternatives like Gemini and Claude)
If you want privacy the only option that reasonably delivers is Moxie's https://confer.to
But tbh I just switched to Anthropic, they need all the support they can get. Claude is great for question/answer.
While Dario is not my hero with the sometimes the outrageous things he says he has a firm moral compass and a backbone that aligns with mine and thus I will support his company and their products in my personal use and my work.
If you're unhappy with this, an immediate way to signal it is with your wallet. In my case I've just uninstalled chatgpt from my phone, cancelled my subscription and will up my spend with anthropic.
Thanks for the reminder. Doing the same now.
The little respect I had left for Sam is now wiped. Makes me sick.
Growing up I always thought AI would be this beautiful tool, this thing that opens the gates to a new society where work becomes optional in a way. But I failed to think about human greed.
I remember following OpenAI way back when it was a non profit explaining how AI uncontrolled could be highly detrimental. Now Sam has not only taken that non profit and made it for-profit. It seems he’s making the most evil decisions he can for a buck.
Cancel your subscription, tell your friends to. And vote to heavily tax these companies and their leaders.
Perfect timing - Had already cancelled my Claude sub over their OAuth ban in external tools and was about to pick up a Codex sub as the next best alternative.
Ended up renewing my Claude sub today instead. Principled stances matter and I no longer trust OpenAI to be trustworthy custodians of my AI History.
Just canceled my subscription! I immediately received an email with the subject “We’d love your feedback on why you canceled your ChatGPT plus subscription” and a link to a survey.
I linked to https://notdivided.org/ as the reasoning why.
I’d like to say I did that but I already canceled my subscription 4 months ago in favor of Claude and Gemini based purely on product quality.
Was shocking back then to think how far we’ve come.
Deleted all chats and deleted my account.
I tried doing that but I'm certain they didn't delete it, because I tried logging in after a week and it worked
Totally agree. Signed up for a claude code account and will not give OpenAI any money in the future. Let's see what Google does. I will definitely vote with my wallet.
I canceled my subscription, wiped my history, closed my account, deleted the app. Using Claude Max.
Thanks for reminding me. Been meaning to cancel for months.
Exactly. Stop using OpenAI. Don’t design it into your software at work. Use Claude. Screw these guys.
Yep I’m pulling the plug on my OIA account on Monday morning and switching to Anthropic.
Same here. Removed my account, deleted the app.
Just deleted OpenAI account, F these guys
Same
Do you honestly believe that cancelling a subscription makes a bit of difference to a company that is either committing accounting fraud on a monumental scale or shoveling venture capital money into a furnace? not to mention the whole collaborating with a fascist government thing.
taking real action is your choice, but stop pretending this kind of thing matters one iota
edit: to be clear, i'm not advocating for nihilism, but tricking yourself into thinking you made a difference to make yourself feel better isn't the play either
It absolutely matters, especially when done in unison like this.
Cancelling ChatGPT sends a signal that you don't agree with weaponizing AI. Switching to Claude says you support Anthropic's principled stance against it. If you have a strong opinion either way, today is the day to vote with your wallet.
Dismissing every small action as meaningless is just apathy and how nothing ever changes.
Anthropic isn't against weaponizing AI, it's just against two specific carve outs for now. They happily accepted the Pentagon's money so long as it was only spying on other countries. And now that the leopard is eating their face they're claiming the moral high ground.
It's entirely possible for both Anthropic and OpenAI to be in the wrong here. This is a massive publicity win but it doesn't make them heroes in my book.
It sure does but it's hard to get a bigger wallet than public money in the US. I do think it's fundamental as an individual to take a moral stance, even if it's entirely pointless, for one owns psychological well-being but honestly here I believe the whole point is precisely to decouple from the need of consumers who are clearly NOT paying for AI. Relying on income from governments is a smart move.
So yes, do cancel if you were paying for OpenAI. Stop using it entirely even, but don't necessarily expect to slow down their encroachment, sadly.
What has an impact is cancelling a subscription and then talking about it. The media will amplify it the pushback. The goal is to make the name OpenAI and ChatGPT toxic, that whatever you do will be converted into a technology that will surveil or bomb you.
I think you have too much pessimism. It's not guaranteed to work, but as I mentioned in another thread, since around December, Claude (and Gemini to a lesser extent) has had all the buzz in tech circles, while Chat-GPT has seemed like the also-ran. And that matters: decision-makers in companies notice these things and momentum becomes self-reinforcing (you use Claude Code because everyone else uses Claude Code). If a large enough group of developers visibly defects from OpenAI because of this, it definitely could have consequences. It's not a sure thing, but it's far from hopeless.
I was not a Chat-GPT user even before this, but I'm bumping my Claude Code subscription to the next tier up. Fuck OpenAI.
At least I'm not getting my hands dirty.
Yes? Earnings matter to investors
Do they? What are those OpenAI earnings that you are talking about? That's a company that should have ceased existing some time ago if earnings were important
Investors want to see growth. If there’s no growth or even a loss in users the next round of funding will be more difficult to secure.
It's the only thing that matters. These companies don't follow the rules of capitalism physics. They live or die on vibes alone and the tech community abandoning them en masse is bad for the vibes. Once they lose the vibes they are Wiley Coyote looking down at the canyon below.
> but stop pretending this kind of thing matters one iota
This is blatantly false and intellectually dishonest. Of course it matters. Your edit is also wrong; you are advocating for nihilism with statments like these.
Personally I'm happy about this. OpenAI are being fair about letting the gov use their models to spy on everybody, doesn't seem right that Americans get a pass.
Choosing to go along with calling it the "Department of War" tells you all you need to know.
Remember when openai was too afraid to release the full GPT-2 model (this one had only 1.5B params) because humanity apparently wasn't ready for it. Look where we are just a couple of years later. I really admired them back in the day for openai gym and PPO etc.
This is how OpenAI gets bailed out in an AI crash, too big to fail becomes too important to fail.
So basically Greg Brockman of OpenAI, currently the largest MAGA PAC donor, used his bribe to make the government destroy his main competition? I’m absolutely cancelling ChatGPT and will tell everyone I know to cancel as well.
I also absolutely do not trust sleezy Sam Altman when he claims he has the same exact redlines as Anthropic:
> AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
If Hegseth and Trump attack Anthropic and sign a deal with OpenAI under the same restrictions, it means this is them corrupting free markets by picking which companies win. Maybe it’s at the behest of David Sacks, the corrupt AI czar who complained about lawfare throughout the Biden administration but now cheers on far worse lawfare.
So it’s either a government looking to surveil citizens illegally or a government that is deeply corrupt and is using its power to enrich some people above others.
I guess we aren't curing cancer with ai anymore
I would not be surprised if Sam A. helped engineer this whole situation… “Child’s play,” like replacing a reddit ceo.
Oh look! https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-whole-thing-was-scam
Screw OpenAI. Never opening that app again or using one of their models.
cancelling my openai subscription, they're gonna miss my 20 USD
It is quite shocking that almost all AI companies are saying "we are not ok with domestic surveillance" but they'll happily sign up to surveilling the rest of the world population.
So by that measure the US govt can go get some Israeli software to surveill their domestic populace!
Homo sapiens deserve to become extinct.
Instant uninstall.
For the people that don't understand how they got a deal with the same redlines, it probably because OpenAI agreed to not question them. The safeguards are there, both parties agree now fuck off and let us use your model how we see fit.
Anthropic probably made the mistake of questioning the Military's activities related to Claude after the Venezuela mission and wanted reassurance that the model wouldn't be used for the redlines, and the military didn't like this and told them we aren't using your models unless you agree to not question us and then the back and forth started.
In the end, we will probably have both OpenAI and Anthropic providing AI to the military and that's a good thing. I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week.
Anthropic vs OpenAI will probably be The Machine vs Samaritan
(Person Of Interest for those who haven't seen it, watched it a decade ago and it's actually quite surprising how on point it ended up being)
> I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week.
Why? It is in the admin's interest to absolutely destroy Anthropic. Make them an example.
Because once Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and all their contractors call to tell them they need Anthropic they will drop it.
Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic should all have each other's backs when it comes to hard lines like this. Sam can say whatever he wants, but signing this deal on the same day Trump and Hegseth went scorched earth on Anthropic — for standing up for the very values OpenAI claims to hold — is sleazy.
Screw Sam, and screw OpenAI. I've been a customer of theirs since the first month their API opened to developers. Today I cancelled my subscription and deleted my account.
I'd already signed up for Claude Max and had been slow to cancel my OpenAI subscriptions. This finally made the decision easy.
> In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety
Right. Pete "FAFO" Hegseth is a model of intelligence, moderation, and respect for due process. Nothing to see here.
Funny that these are the same people that have been blasting the alarm on dangers of AI singularity. Now they cannot wait to put their tools in weapons.
Anyone having success with exporting data from ChatGPT? Got the export email 11 hours ago but still no download link..
Does deploying these models in "the classified network" also mean this technology is going to be used to help kill people?
If you work at OpenAI, leave now while you can.
All that money and not a single ounce of integrity.
Opportunism without principles at its finest.
How do llms get used in either survalience or for autonomous weapons. Using written English seems so inefficient?
From the man who founded Worldcoin and built a grandiose vision of having the biometrics of every human in the developing world saved on his own corporate database: America - you're next.
Well ... bumped up my Claude subscription from Pro to Max and closed out my OpenAI accounts. It's a drop in the ocean but I'll sleep better knowing I did the right thing. Thanks ChatGPT! It was good knowing you.
Please note that the US Congress has not approved the existence of a "Department of War" this century. Calling it the Department of Defense is the only legally correct way to refer to it.
Snakes- as predicted
> OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shares Anthropic’s concerns when it comes to working with the Pentagon
The same day:
Pssst psst Samy Samy, come here we have money and data psst
> Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.
Is there anyone who really understands what’s different about the OpenAI agreement? Or maybe these are just Sam Altman’s public statements that don’t actually reflect the real terms of the deal. I honestly can’t figure it out.
What a snake
Maybe the problem here is they are negotiating by using social media posts. Where is the team of Anthropic people, and the team of Gov people, that should be in a room somewhere doing this in private?
So this is indeed how OpenAI survives (a little bit longer ?) - government bailout.
> Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.
Under normal circumstances, that would seem really plausible. But given how far Trump continues to go just out of spite and to project power, it actually is the opposite.
I am fully prepared to believe that they got absolutely nothing else out of it (to date).
OpenAI was the biggest donor ($25 millions) to Trumps campaign. This is them getting their back scratched in return.
This explains the "Free Codex" offer i just got in my email
All of this, the news articles, the social media discussion, this very discussion, will be part of the training set for future AIs. What will they learn from this?
I know the reaction to this, if you're a rational observer, is "OpenAI have cut corners or made concessions that Anthropic did not, that's the only thing that makes sense."
However, if you live in the US and pay a passing attention to our idiotic politics, you know this is right out of the Trump playbook. It goes like this:
* Make a negotiation personal
* Emotionally lash out and kill the negotiation
* Complete a worse or similar deal, with a worse or similar party
* Celebrate your worse deal as a better deal
Importantly, you must waste enormous time and resources to secure nothing of substance.
That's why I actually believe that OpenAI will meet the same bar Anthropic did, at least for now. Will they continue to, in the same way Anthropic would have? Seems unlikely, but we'll see.
Another good question: If OpenAI knew Anthropic wasn't a competitor... was the price higher? Will the federal government also pay more for a worse product?
You'd have to think so. They're really the only serious player left - I doubt Google would want to be involved, and xAI is a significant step down.
If you support openai, you support this admin, simple as
We really need a plan for the scenario in which the US loses the trade war and decides to go homicidal AI on the whole world. Like, help them recover or something.
regardless of your opinion of ai in government, sam could not have picked a worse way for optics to swoop in and make a deal. it just looks incredibly bad.
China has evacuated its embassies in Iran.
This is really about the imminent strike on Iran which is now super telegraphed. They are gonna use ChatGPT for target selection, and the likely outcome is that it will fuck things up and a bunch of civilians are going to die because of this decision.
When this happens, Altman will go from being merely a drifter to having blood on his hands.
OpenAI in action: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...
speaking of blood on their hands, they are fighting multiple lawsuits related to suicide advice chats.
Why would they use chatgpt for target selection?
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has over 200,000 personnel. There are thousands of putative SAM sites and MANPAD launch sites. The amount of data to crunch is significant.
Alternatively, the DoW is simply incompetent and Trump or Hegseth wants to use AI to draft war plans.
Are LLMs actually decent at this sort of data crunching though? I thought at best they could write a script to help.
Iran, Cuba, and to classify people as "Antifa".
A lot of innocent people are about to be harmed because the cogs of fascism are lubricated with blood.
The Iran situation is unique. If it is true that Epstein was part of a blackmailing operation run by Israeli intelligence, then the time to act is limited. It may only be a matter of time before the US-Israel special relationship begins to deteriorate, especially as the House of Representatives starts digging into what was going on.
For hardline right wing Israeli government officials who would be privy to such information, the window of time to leverage to US to enact regime change on the Islamic Republic is closing. The survival of Israel over the long run really depends on not having a hardline Islamic regime in Iran developing nuclear weapons. Things like AI safety and US elections are secondary to such prerogatives. The question for voters in the US is whether it really is worth it to the average US citizen to shed blood and tax dollars for this stuff.
I hope there can be a peaceful regime change in Iran and that there will be peaceful relations with Iran and Israel in the future. But damn I wish things could go back to normal with our US political system once this is all settled.
Ah, is it the time when Skynet starts to manifest itself...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47195085
So there are two possibilities here:
1. There's no substantive change. Hegseth/Trump just wanted to punish Anthropic for standing up to them, even if it didn't get them anything else today -- establishing a chilling effect for the future has some value for them in this case, after all. And OpenAI was willing to help them do that, despite earlier claiming that they stood behind Anthropic's decisions.
2. There is a substantive change. Despite Altman's words, they have a tacit understanding that OpenAI won't really enforce those terms, or that they'll allow them to be modified some time in the future when attention has moved on elsewhere.
Either way, it makes Altman look slimy, and OpenAI has aligned with Trump against Anthropic in a place where Anthropic made a correct principled stand. It's been clear for a while that Anthropic has more ethics than OpenAI, but this is more naked than any previous example.
> OpenAI has aligned with Trump against Anthropic in a place where Anthropic made a correct principled stand.
Just to be clear, you believe that the correct, principled stand is that it's OK to use their models for killing people and civilian surveillance?
Both OAI and Anthropic have the same moral leg to stand on here, OAI is just not hypocritical about it.
If you believe that any country should have a military and intelligence apparatus, the job of that apparatus is to kill people and surveil foreigners. I do think the US government should have a military and intelligence apparatus. Therefore, any company that works with it, from suppliers of clothing and food to suppliers of compute and AI, are supporting an organization with that mission.
The US military _does not_ need to build autonomous weapon systems and _should not_ surveil US citizens broadly.
This seems full of loopholes.
> The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
(1) Well, did both sides sign the agreement and is it actually effective? Or is it still sitting on someone's desk until it can get stalled long enough?
(2) What does "agreement" even mean? Is it a legally enforceable contract, or just some sort of MoU or pinkie promise?
(3) If it's a legally enforceable contract, is it equally enforceable on all of their contracts, or just some? Do they not have existing contracts this would need to apply to?
(4) What does "reflects them in law and policy" even mean? Since when does DoW make laws, and in what sense do their laws reflect whatever the agreement was? Are these laws he can point to so everyone else can see? Can he at least copy-paste the exact sentences the government agreed to?
Department of War just killed OpenAI's brand
Chatgpt has an export function for all of your chats
Use it to save your data, shouldn't be hard to get it working elsewhere
Didn't the department of war announce that it would be working with xAI just this past December?
Well in the end this is great news - this virtually guarantees Anthropic win in the court.
At this point it seems the entire AI Safety/Ethics debate was nothing more than a Marketing campaign to hype up the capabilities of the models - get people to think that if they're potentially dangerous that must mean they're so capable and they need to sign up for a subscription.
> prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance
so foreign mass surveillance is all good?
Is OpenAI and ChatGPT nie a national security threat for other countries?
What part of "These people are fascists, and need to be stopped" are people failing to understand?
The part about money
The stories I’ve been reading say that the DoW’s agreement with OpenAI contain the very same limitations as the agreement with Anthropic did. In other words, they pressured Anthropic to eliminate those restrictions, Anthropic declined, then they made a huge fuss calling them “a radical left, woke company,” put them on the supply-chain risk list, then went with OpenAI even though OpenAI isn’t changing anything either.
The whole story makes no sense to me. The DoW didn’t get what they wanted, and now Anthropic is tarred and feathered.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/trump-will-end-government-use-of...
“OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said the company’s deal with the Defense Department includes those same prohibitions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, as well as technical safeguards to make sure the models behave as they should.”
Don’t just cancel, flood them with CCPA requests.
There's was an 80s movie about this...
How did they agree to the terms that were initially put forward by Anthropic but with OpenAI? Surely there’s a catch here. Or is it just Sam negotiation skill?
is there a single thing left that altman promised that he hasn't broken with this company...
So now we are waiting for Anthropic to explain to us what Sam agreed to and what they rejected.
On the surface, it looks like both rejected 'domestic mass surveillance' and 'autonomous weapon systems', but there seem to be important differences in the fine print, since one company is being labeled a 'supply chain risk' while the other 'reached the patriotic and correct answer'.
One explanation would be that the DoW changed its demands, but I doubt that. Instead, I believe OpenAI found a loophole that allows those cases under certain conditions.
In my experience ChatGPT is the most sanctimonious of the leading models.
When I need advice for my clandestine operations I always reach for Grok.
the AI datacenter built for 180B are used for surveillance and control
Honestly not even surprised. What else could you expect from a zionist?
So it’s personal basically
The “Department of War” does not exist and no one should use their preferred pronouns.
Perhaps Trump's DOD objects specifically to Anthropic models themselves declining to do immoral and illegal things, and not something just stipulated in an ignorable contract. That would give room for Sam to throw some public CYA into a contract, while neutering model safety to their requirements.
Remember that the US administration is supporting Israel on the ethnic-cleansing and genocide of Gaza, using Palantir technology and AI systems that generate kill lists. It's "IBM and the Holocaust" all over again.
SA is a real weasel lol. Acted like he stood behind Anthropic's principles just to announce the deal with DoW a few hours later.
Sam Altman not being consistently candid or truthful would be the shock of the century.
Sam Altman is a psychopath and his only talent is lying to people and convincing them of his lies.
Oh yeah, from the company which raison d'etre was being open and being good.
shocked pikachu face
Come on by now we all know the only thing Altman (who else is still at OpenAI from the start?) wants it more money and more power, it doesn't really matter how.
Is this setting the stage for a bailout? Was the whole thing between the three parties smoke and mirrors to justify a bailout down the line? It's conspiracy theory territory but, you know who we're dealing with here.
So nice of him! I am sure he believes they should offer these terms to all competitors.
HN: if you continue to subscribe to OpenAI, if you use it at your startup, you’re no better than the tech bros you often criticize. This is not surprising but beyond shady.
Sam must not be aware of what happened to any business or foreign nation/leader considered outwardly friendly to the first Trump administration when the democrats regained control in 2020.
You’re assuming democrats will ever be allowed to regain control.
If they earnestly believe in fast ASI timelines then political grudges have to be pretty low on OAI's list of worries about 2029.
to all the naysayers: what did all these people doing AI research expect? that the military doesn't want to use their stuff? and then when it does, Pikachu face?
I know I'll get down voted but come on, this is so very naive.
Sam Altman is this. Sam Altman needs to be stopped.
Their models are crappy anyway, the "super intelligence" BS is nowhere to be seen. Just let them die or become a US government asset.
perhaps us mere mortals should petition our lawmakers to ban mass surveillance.
So while Sam Altman claims that OAI received promises not to have fully automated killbot-GPT from Hegseth, so did Anthropic(!)—but it contained weasel legal language that allowed the USG to ignore the restrictions at will. (We all know how the current admin reads such language.)
So until we see the contract I think it’s fair to assume that OAI and Anthropic got roughly the same deal, with Anthropic insisting on language that actually limits the government, while OAI licked the boot and is passing it off like filet mignon.
There will be a scene in some future movie about Trump's authoritarian rise (we are still early in it) that shows Sam signing this agreement. Sam will be played by a character actor meant to symbolize silicon valley opportunism and greed.
What sam and greg don't realize is that the many who succumb to trump's pressure tactics will all be lumped into the same category by history.
Sam and Greg are handing an authoritarian regime that has broken so many laws in the past year a superweapon.
This will backfire on Sam someday, he’s just a pawn in the agenda of the Trump admin.
I hope so but I am less optimistic. The oligarchy in Russia who remained loyal to the Putin regime have done just fine for decades as long as they did not attempt to overthrow the dictator. The regime in Washington is basically constructing the same type of kleptocracy and very little evidence is there that anyone who matters will get in their way. So far as I can tell the country is already a form of authoritarian regime where the loyalty to the supreme ruler is the main parameter of conducting business there.
I wonder if this will cause this to save open ai from the bubble! i am sure i am wrong;-)
It’s the Department of Defense, and let’s not have the main post be a link to the non-consensual-porn-generating and Nazi-supporting site. Could an admin change the main link to the Fortune article also linked here?
Refreshing sanity.
"We will not be divided!"
They got divided 12 hours later, lol.
Thank you Sam Altman for being a man with a good sense of ethics and empowering the US Military while it fights evil in Iran and empowering the US government and ignoring the idiotic haters
Musk 100% right about this guy
get fucked OpenAI. cancelled my subscription.
lol it didn't even take them a whole night.
There's a lot of people in this thread that assume that Sam Altman is the one who is being dishonest here, and I kind of understand, but the other two parties who could just as easily be lying are Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump, and of the three of them if you think sama is the _most_ likely to lie I feel like you have not been paying attention.
"Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.
In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.
AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only.
We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements.
We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place."
> We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can.
Serve Palestinians volleys of rockets, that is.
[dead]
[dead]
Sam is just about the least trustworthy person in AI, I don't trust his words as face value and I consider these weasel words:
> prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility *for the use of force*
That means autonomous killbots are a-ok. Human responsibility is not the same as human decision-making.
The president or anybody at DoD can be "responsible", and we know there will be zero accountability. The courts defer to the executive, and Congress is all-too-happy for the executive to take the flak for their wars.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
TOTAL ALTMAN VICTORY
> We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should
A bold statement. It would appear they've definitively solved prompt injection and all the other ills that LLMs have been susceptible to. And forgot to tell the world about it.
/s
[flagged]
Cancelling seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a human to do.
Hey dang I know I’m not allowed to say this due to community guidelines, but Sam Altman is a lying sack of shit.
I am glad OpenAI stood up to do what's right and give the American people the ability to choose how AI is used for themselves rather than dictating it from their high horse.
Edit: It looks like the terms are similar in OpenAI's deal in what they prohibit so it isn't clear why they are any better. We should be the ones dictating what is and isn't prohibited. Not Sam. We will have to wait for more news on what is actually different.
Any government is allowed to choose to do whatever it wants however it wishes; in a republic: given what is legally determined by the three branches. Obviously. They can contract with whomever they want, make any deal with whomever they want.
This also means that they should adhere to a deal once it is signed. That's part of the law too. They shouldn't suddenly turn around and try to alter the deal, then retaliate against their deal partner when they say "that wasn't the deal". You can't just go and answer: "Pray we don't alter it further".
The government of a nation sets the example for others, and should be scrupulous in their dealings.
Just because you sign a deal that didn't mean you can't change it or terminate it in the future. As long as both parties agree any contract can be modified or terminated. If they don't usually the contract contains information on how it works.
Agreed. That's all it had to be.
Which is why Hegseths vindictive actions seem just a little bit disproportionate.
Yeah. And they are losing money from inference (HN told me so) so the US government is subsidizing our token usage!
OpenAI is not losing money from inference. HN has told you the opposite repeatedly.
I was being sarcastic.
It is difficult to determine whether written text was meant to be sarcastic or not.
Plain and simple this is revenge for the Anthropic super bowl ads, which were epic burns against openAI's primary future revenue stream.
This seems like an exceptionally shallow reading of everything and everyone involved.
You think OpenAI decided to build MurderBot because someone made fun on them selling ads?
I think it's plausible, given the effort he seemed to put into his initial response to the ads: https://x.com/sama/status/2019139174339928189
from the tweet above: "Maybe even more importantly: Anthropic wants to control what people do with AI—they block companies they don't like from using their coding product (including us), they want to write the rules themselves for what people can and can't use AI for, and now they also want to tell other companies what their business models can be."
Raise your hand if you actually read it or if you read the title and replied? I see a lot of comments that sure seem like they didn’t read it.
> Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.
IF this is true, it SHOULD be verifiable. So, we wait? I mean, I am a dummy, but that language doesn’t seem too washy too me? Either it’s a bold face lie and OpenAI burns because of it or it’s true and the Trump admin is going after the “left” AI company. Or whatever. My point is, someone smarter than me/us is going to fact check Sam’s claim.
The problem is that many of those would-be fact checkers have massive incentives to lie about it. So regardless of whether it is true, you're going to see a number of detailed and well-researched pieces over the weekend arguing that Altman is right and this whole thing is Anthropic's fault. The set of people who could cause OpenAI to burn and the set of people who have millions of dollars riding on its success substantially overlap; it may not take a particularly good argument to convince them.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m overly hopeful and naïve
Edit: as soon as I hit submit I realized this might sound condescending, but I actually mean this lol
FWIW I thought the intent was clear.
> Either it’s a bold face lie and OpenAI burns because of it
Do you really still genuinely believe in this? This is the same person that said ads is going to be the last resort, and yet we are getting ads. I just don't understand how people can trust a single word coming out of folks like Sam, Musk, Trump or whoever rich asshole.
I listen to these people talk and they literally do not have souls. They will say whatever it is they need to get ahead. I watched a couple of Sam speeches and videos, the man does not have anything interesting to say.
1-800-Come-on-now
DoW: WOKE Antropic tried to impose their 'values' on us? Friendship ended!! National security risk!
OpenAI: We just signed a deal that's strong on values, the exact same ones as Anthropic, no way we would mislead anyone about this
You: Seems legit
I like the idea of seeing someone post “I dislike and distrust Sam Altman” and thinking “They must be saying that because they haven’t read the things that he writes”
"The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement" is incredibly wishy washy.
What does it even mean to reflect those principles in law? Did they pass a law that says they can't do it? Which one?
What does it mean to "put them into our agreement"? Did they just have a section in the appendix listing various principles, or is there agreement from both parties to not violate those principles? What system does the contract specify for verification of compliance?
I mean, this is a company literally named "Open"AI, nominally a non-profit or whatever. I think they will survive quietly opening an endpoint for their customer. Unlikely anyone is under enough illusions about Sama's moral character to be scandalized by deception.
Do you know who isn't a dummy? Sam. The crucial part of that statement is that the DoD will use OpenAI systems "lawfully and responsibly," which I don't doubt is written somewhere in their contract. However, those terms are so open-ended that it's impossible for OpenAI to enforce. Sam could have clarified in his tweet that they explicitly prohibited the use of their technology for mass surveillance and autonomous killings, but he deliberately chose not to and to simply say, "We told them not to do bad things." which smells like bullshit
I guess I’m hanging on what
> reflects them in law
Means exactly. What law and what does it say?
I’m also sure he quietly bent the knee, but I want to know what “law and policy” it’s being reflected in to know.
No contract can require the government to “reflect” something in law, aside from the fact that the DoD is not a legislative body. So whatever Sam is talking about can only be lip service.