This is what I was wondering about. On the low-side (the unclassified networks), GenAI.mil uses Google Gemini. While I've yet to use it, several of my coworkers have. And from their comments, it...
"The Pentagon is negotiating with Google and OpenAI to try to get them to agree to what Anthropic has refused," the petition added.
This is what I was wondering about. On the low-side (the unclassified networks), GenAI.mil uses Google Gemini. While I've yet to use it, several of my coworkers have. And from their comments, it does alright (though they're just using it for "typical" workplace purposes; summarizing, writing policies/SOPs, etc.). Would it be that difficult for Google (or OpenAI) to simply step in if Anthropic is kicked to the curb?
I'm not saying that if Google and/or OpenAI are willing to allow "all lawful uses" and can easily replace Anthropic, that Anthropic shouldn't be making a stand. If I was at Anthropic, whatever stuff other companies do is their business. Living by your own principles is always worthwhile. Hopefully both Google and OpenAI are like "Yeah, nah, no go," too. However, my fear, as we've already seen with numerous companies, is that they simply are like "Yeah, do whatever! Just gib monies."
Google might have trouble providing the same level of functionality, Gemini just isn't as good right now (benchmarks aside), but there's certainly nothing stopping them from saying yes. Open AI...
Would it be that difficult for Google (or OpenAI) to simply step in if Anthropic is kicked to the curb?
Google might have trouble providing the same level of functionality, Gemini just isn't as good right now (benchmarks aside), but there's certainly nothing stopping them from saying yes. Open AI models are close enough that they'd probably be able to swap pretty easily.
Just gib monies
Agreed, I'd amazed if the pentagon couldn't find a replacement, the US gov is the ultimate enterprise customer if you're willing to deal with the regulations. The solidarity from the employees is still great to see though. One sliver of hope: The Trump admin is unpopular and this is a good PR opportunity.
xAI conspicuously absent from the conversation. Hmm, I wonder where they stand on the matter…?
"They're trying to divide each company with fear that the other will give in," the petition said, referring to the Department of War.
"That strategy only works if none of us know where the others stand. This letter serves to create shared understanding and solidarity in the face of this pressure from the Department of War," it added.
xAI conspicuously absent from the conversation. Hmm, I wonder where they stand on the matter…?
I would say that if all others refuse to give in and there's enough public concern about this that it could have enough impact to persuade others from giving in, but people still use X despite...
I would say that if all others refuse to give in and there's enough public concern about this that it could have enough impact to persuade others from giving in, but people still use X despite Threads (which isn't much of a better alternative on the ownership front thanks to fuckerberg) and BlueSky existing. I doubt anyone will back off using anything from xAI's Grok at that point.
I'mma be honest, even though people were quite frantic about it, I have no idea how Claude is supposed to be used effectively for surveillance or for "weapons", but still nonetheless quite risky...
I'mma be honest, even though people were quite frantic about it, I have no idea how Claude is supposed to be used effectively for surveillance or for "weapons", but still nonetheless quite risky to publicly decline this US administration in this way. So a message, for sure.
Like much of this administration: very poorly and incompetently. Reading some of the law and medical horror stories at hand with AI makes me shudder at whatever they are going to do with it for...
I have no idea how Claude is supposed to be used effectively for surveillance or for "weapons"
Like much of this administration: very poorly and incompetently. Reading some of the law and medical horror stories at hand with AI makes me shudder at whatever they are going to do with it for governmental military weapons.
At least there's one company here on the record of pushing back. For the time being.
LLMs would be fantastic for a probable cause generator. Poke it until it says that whatever person/group you're targeting is the suspect, and now that an advanced AI system has said it you've got...
LLMs would be fantastic for a probable cause generator. Poke it until it says that whatever person/group you're targeting is the suspect, and now that an advanced AI system has said it you've got all the justification needed to go after them.
Douglas Adams used this exact idea, down to the software being bought out by the Pentagon, as a satirical plot point almost 40 years ago (relevant excerpt). I am not pleased to think that it’s now...
Douglas Adams used this exact idea, down to the software being bought out by the Pentagon, as a satirical plot point almost 40 years ago (relevant excerpt). I am not pleased to think that it’s now entirely realistic…
Probable cause isn’t really the domain of the pentagon? Sure for the alphabet agencies that’s a problem but this doesn’t strike me as even on the radar of the pentagon
Probable cause isn’t really the domain of the pentagon? Sure for the alphabet agencies that’s a problem but this doesn’t strike me as even on the radar of the pentagon
In a lengthy blog post on Thursday, Amodei wrote: “I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries.”
Amodei said Anthropic understands that the Pentagon, “not private companies, makes military decisions.” But “in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.” He also said use cases like mass surveillance and autonomous weapons are “outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do.”
In response, Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s Undersecretary for Research and Engineering who had been part of the negotiations, wrote on X: “It’s a shame that @DarioAmodei is a liar and has a God-complex. He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk. The @DeptofWar will ALWAYS adhere to the law but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.”
I mean it doesn’t really answer how that would be done. As people often note when anthropic’s blog posts come up, anthropic really likes to pretend like they’re techpriests summoning something...
I mean it doesn’t really answer how that would be done. As people often note when anthropic’s blog posts come up, anthropic really likes to pretend like they’re techpriests summoning something from the dark age of technology.
That answer implies that Claude could be used for surveillance or whatever in an unsafe and unreliable way, but as it currently is i don’t see how it could do anything remotely relevant, let alone unsafe.
I think this is the right take. I want to read this as Anthropic saying they object to autonomous weapons and mass surveillance… but I think what they’re actually saying is LLMs are just the wrong...
I think this is the right take. I want to read this as Anthropic saying they object to autonomous weapons and mass surveillance… but I think what they’re actually saying is LLMs are just the wrong tool for the job (but they have actual no problem with those things).
Which, I mean, that’s an objectively correct assessment of the tech, but not exactly a bulwark of moral fortitude.
I think that saying "llms are the wrong tool for the job" has a much bigger chance of succeeding than "we think this is unethical". So strategically it would be bad to not include that argument...
I think that saying "llms are the wrong tool for the job" has a much bigger chance of succeeding than "we think this is unethical". So strategically it would be bad to not include that argument regardless of the actual reason. Doesn't have to be just one of the reasons either, it can be both.
Why does the DoD need Anthropic, or any AI company, for that matter? They have the wherewithal and resources to spin up all the LLMs and ML they could want, and develop models that are totally...
Why does the DoD need Anthropic, or any AI company, for that matter? They have the wherewithal and resources to spin up all the LLMs and ML they could want, and develop models that are totally optimized for their use cases, like performing game theory or killing people.
Wow I did not expect that
This is a nice touch:
Open AI and Google employees sign on
This is what I was wondering about. On the low-side (the unclassified networks), GenAI.mil uses Google Gemini. While I've yet to use it, several of my coworkers have. And from their comments, it does alright (though they're just using it for "typical" workplace purposes; summarizing, writing policies/SOPs, etc.). Would it be that difficult for Google (or OpenAI) to simply step in if Anthropic is kicked to the curb?
I'm not saying that if Google and/or OpenAI are willing to allow "all lawful uses" and can easily replace Anthropic, that Anthropic shouldn't be making a stand. If I was at Anthropic, whatever stuff other companies do is their business. Living by your own principles is always worthwhile. Hopefully both Google and OpenAI are like "Yeah, nah, no go," too. However, my fear, as we've already seen with numerous companies, is that they simply are like "Yeah, do whatever! Just gib monies."
Google might have trouble providing the same level of functionality, Gemini just isn't as good right now (benchmarks aside), but there's certainly nothing stopping them from saying yes. Open AI models are close enough that they'd probably be able to swap pretty easily.
Agreed, I'd amazed if the pentagon couldn't find a replacement, the US gov is the ultimate enterprise customer if you're willing to deal with the regulations. The solidarity from the employees is still great to see though. One sliver of hope: The Trump admin is unpopular and this is a good PR opportunity.
xAI conspicuously absent from the conversation. Hmm, I wonder where they stand on the matter…?
I would say that if all others refuse to give in and there's enough public concern about this that it could have enough impact to persuade others from giving in, but people still use X despite Threads (which isn't much of a better alternative on the ownership front thanks to fuckerberg) and BlueSky existing. I doubt anyone will back off using anything from xAI's Grok at that point.
I'mma be honest, even though people were quite frantic about it, I have no idea how Claude is supposed to be used effectively for surveillance or for "weapons", but still nonetheless quite risky to publicly decline this US administration in this way. So a message, for sure.
Like much of this administration: very poorly and incompetently. Reading some of the law and medical horror stories at hand with AI makes me shudder at whatever they are going to do with it for governmental military weapons.
At least there's one company here on the record of pushing back. For the time being.
LLMs would be fantastic for a probable cause generator. Poke it until it says that whatever person/group you're targeting is the suspect, and now that an advanced AI system has said it you've got all the justification needed to go after them.
Douglas Adams used this exact idea, down to the software being bought out by the Pentagon, as a satirical plot point almost 40 years ago (relevant excerpt). I am not pleased to think that it’s now entirely realistic…
Probable cause isn’t really the domain of the pentagon? Sure for the alphabet agencies that’s a problem but this doesn’t strike me as even on the radar of the pentagon
Sifting through all of that Prism data? Find the dissidents using NLP.
How would Claude help in any way? The Pentagon is more than capable of running BERT.
But they want advanced NLP!
That answers your question @stu2b50.
I mean it doesn’t really answer how that would be done. As people often note when anthropic’s blog posts come up, anthropic really likes to pretend like they’re techpriests summoning something from the dark age of technology.
That answer implies that Claude could be used for surveillance or whatever in an unsafe and unreliable way, but as it currently is i don’t see how it could do anything remotely relevant, let alone unsafe.
I think that's the point. The unsafe way is to ask it to do something it can't really do.
I think this is the right take. I want to read this as Anthropic saying they object to autonomous weapons and mass surveillance… but I think what they’re actually saying is LLMs are just the wrong tool for the job (but they have actual no problem with those things).
Which, I mean, that’s an objectively correct assessment of the tech, but not exactly a bulwark of moral fortitude.
I think that saying "llms are the wrong tool for the job" has a much bigger chance of succeeding than "we think this is unethical". So strategically it would be bad to not include that argument regardless of the actual reason. Doesn't have to be just one of the reasons either, it can be both.
"request" ... apparently, Hegseth wasn't quite blunt enough.
Why does the DoD need Anthropic, or any AI company, for that matter? They have the wherewithal and resources to spin up all the LLMs and ML they could want, and develop models that are totally optimized for their use cases, like performing game theory or killing people.