[arugulum]

> 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."

[layer8]

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.

[outside1234]

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.

[pseudalopex]

> 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?

[layer8]

I’m reading between the lines of the involved parties’ various statements, but there’s also this: https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230

[pseudalopex]

> 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.

[layer8]

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.

[nandomrumber]

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.

[pseudalopex]

> 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.

[remarkEon]

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...

[lukan]

"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.

[retsibsi]

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?

[sillyfluke]

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?

[remarkEon]

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.

[sillyfluke]

> 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.

[remarkEon]

Anonymous sources are bad again. Glad we could clear that up.

[retsibsi]

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.

[remarkEon]

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.

[darkerside]

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.

[wraptile]

> 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

[quaunaut]

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.

[SpicyLemonZest]

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.

[twistedpair]

> 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.

[WD-42]

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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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?

[thejazzman]

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

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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.

[j_maffe]

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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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.

[matsemann]

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.

[charcircuit]

The president changed it back to its original name with an executive order. The administration did not just start spontaneously using it.

[herewulf]

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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

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.

[charcircuit]

The president can't change the law itself, but he can change the name they use.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The law defines the name they should be using

[j_maffe]

If someone is calling themselves a warmonger, they should be called a warmonger.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

100%. But the names of US agencies are not the names of people, and not determined by individuals, even the warmongers.

[IsTom]

The only more fitting name currently would be Department of Peace

[calgoo]

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.

[IsTom]

> 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?

[tombert]

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.

[propagandist]

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.

[nick486]

>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?

[propagandist]

That's precisely how I read it. They're weasel words delivered by the master weasel himself.

[khalic]

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

[newguytony]

Good ole Sammy has never lied

[arugulum]

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.

[lioeters]

The company started with a lie, it's in the name.

[sumeno]

Ok, but he does

[johnbellone]

Yes.

[fooker]

Unrelated, but want to buy a bridge?

You could recoup your investment in a year by collecting toll. Expedited financing available on good credit!

[tomhow]

Please don’t do this here.