> you'll never find altman saying anything like "our agreement specifically says chatgpt will never be used for fully autonomous weapons"
replyTo 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"
replyTheir 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
replyNot 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.
reply> it isn't a moral stance so much as a pragmatic one
replyAgreed, 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
replyDoes he do employee town halls where they could ask?
replyMr. Less-than-Consistently-Candid strikes again
reply