upvote

points

by tfehring18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby syllogism14 hours ago|
next
[-]
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?

reply
upvoteby WarmWash10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby GorbachevyChase9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby WarmWash8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby syllogism7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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
reply
upvoteby WarmWash7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>Definitely with less mud slinging though.
reply
upvoteby syllogism7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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?

reply
upvoteby xpe12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby duzer656575 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
did we really need all this? Didn't the experiences with Ivy League Universities alreay prove it all out?
reply
upvoteby spondyl17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
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...

reply
upvoteby az22616 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby estearum12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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!

reply
upvoteby tedd4u8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]

    `yes | killbot -model openai`
reply
upvoteby xpe12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
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.

reply