Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by retsibsi 113 days ago
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?
2 comments
sillyfluke 113 days ago
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?

link
remarkEon 113 days ago
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.
link
sillyfluke 112 days ago
> 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.

link
remarkEon 113 days ago
Anonymous sources are bad again. Glad we could clear that up.
link
retsibsi 112 days ago
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.
link
remarkEon 112 days ago
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.
link
retsibsi 112 days ago
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?
link