Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, has said he does not want the company’s A.I. to be used to surveil Americans or in autonomous weapons, saying this could “undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth labeled the start-up a “supply chain risk,” a move that would sever ties between the company and the U.S. government.
Anthropic’s unwillingness to accede shows how the Department of Defense cannot easily force Silicon Valley firms to comply. Unlike defense contractors that have worked with the Pentagon for decades and are reliant on longstanding military contracts, the A.I. companies are contending with different internal pressures and external factors.
I’d argue these quotes are on topic but don’t come close to addressing the logical inconsistencies.
That could depend on your take of this statement. I personally don’t understand how this could be done with high certainty and most AI researchers I respect seem to have a similar analysis
i’d say the article shares your skepticism
Oh…
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-whole-thing-was-scam
that is indeed in this very article. please read the last paragraphs
That is a very misleading title for the article. It’s basically a short timeline of the DoD doing its table flip. The article doesn’t seem to include the dot point for the political funding.
Half the article seems to be trying to make the point that these AI providers aren’t jumping to support the DoD with logic that basically amounts to “Even though Google ran to rename to the Gulf of America, there are some rank and file engineers that say they don’t like this” with a couple of companies treated that way. The article’s thesis, for me at least, is a massive shrug until more pushback is seen from these companies.
No shit. That’s been true of most of their companies complicity. I was pretty vocal about early actions it was just less headline grabbing and my voice wasn’t going to do shit to change the company’s actions. The argument that this situation is any different is pretty precariously made in the article.
rank and file is only a small part of the article, though? way way more is about the reasons in revenue sources, “first they came for Anthropic”, and OpenAI’s opportunism. i don’t think any previous things like “gulf of america” have caused this kind of open-letter response
I’d argue the content of that article is pretty misaligned to the title and the quotes didn’t really clarify. A short summary like “A short timeline of the DoD doing its table flip” would have probably helped with the repeated comments you seem to be replying to here