[jjallen]

I mean he quit what he considered to be a problematic company, founded another one, that one’s models refused to do things that the previous company would do, then his new company refused to do the US government’s evil bidding while the other company happily went along with it.

Not small differences to me.

[throwaway132448]

> I mean he quit what he considered to be a problematic company

Problematic why though? For the reasons publicly stated? Then why isn’t Anthropic just what OpenAI was “supposed” to be then? We know what that was from their charter, and Anthropic is not that.

> then his new company refused to do the US government’s evil bidding while the other company happily went along with it

You’re sure about that are you? I don’t see how you possibly could be, unless you’ve taken the PR at face value, before it was all quietly swept away under the next headline.

[jjallen]

Yes I am sure of the second part based on the government’s own publicly available tweets and lawsuits that have been filed.

[throwaway132448]

Literally PR.

[jjallen]

Governmental filings are not PR and either are lawsuits. The lawsuit was won or at the very least validated by a judge.

[CamperBob2]

What part is incorrect? Amodei never said that AI models should not be used for military purposes, did he? He said that they shouldn't be used for autonomous weapons, and then he backed up the talk with action.

I have other beefs with Amodei, including his pathetic, mewling appeals for regulatory capture and his forehead-slapping hypocrisy on copyright and ToS enforcement, but this seemed like a case where he was legitimately on the right side of the question and had the moral courage to stand by his position.