It would be untouchable irony for the US to cut all ties with Anthropic and replace them with models developed by Chinese labs. The Onion becomes more irrelevant with each passing day.

Grok is according to most benchmarks pretty close to SOTA. It is where the leaders were just a few weeks ago.

Which exactly is best changes on almost a weekly basis as different companies tweak their best model. I doubt the military would want to be switching supplier every week.

Rumor has it they like to tickle each others' homunculi right in the region known anatomically as the inferiority-superiority complex.

Altman is an Aes Sedai. He speaks no word that is untrue, but is one often most deceptive people I’ve ever heard.

> Concretely if you try to vibe-target your ICBMs Claude is hopefully telling you that that's a bad idea.

On the non-nuclear battlefield, I expect that the goverment wants Claude to green-light attacks on targets that may actually be non-combatants. Such targets might be military but with a risk of being civilian, or they could be civilians that the government wants to target but can't legally attack.

Humans in the loop would get court-martialed or accused of war crimes for making such targeting calls. But by delegating to AI, the government gets to achieve their policy goals while avoiding having any humans be held accountable for them.

> Starting with a box they want to put in the basement of the Pentagon where Antropic can't just switch off the ai.

They already have that. By definition. If Anthropic has done the work to be able to run on classified networks, then it's already running air-gapped and is not under Anthropic's control.

The thing is, just because you're in a SCIF doesn't (1) mean you can just break laws and (2) Anthropic don't have to support "off-label" applications.

So this is not about what they have and what it can do today - it's about strong-arming anthropic into supporting a bunch of new applications Anthropic don't want to support (and in turn, which Anthropic or it's engineers could then be held legally liable for when a problem happens).

>akin to ordering Ford to build a tank variant of the F150.

It worked for Porsche ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Claude will answer all of those questions. The restriction Anthropic has is letting Claude pull the trigger and vibe-murder with no humans in the loop.

This restriction is apparently "radically woke"

> they will have an extremely hard time winning any election ever again

Heard that one before. We'll get a reprieve of 4-8 years and the vote will go to the fascists again. Take that to the bank.

I prefer to call them chatboxes. It's appropriately belittling. The department of killing wants their chatbox to tell them who to kill.

> If this shit was going down in France

your view of France is severely outdated

>> Well, you see, that's completely different. Nvidia agreed to give them money!

Also I believe NVIDIA's supposed to pay the US government 15% of its revenues from Chinese sales:

https://www.ft.com/content/cd1a0729-a8ab-41e1-a4d2-8907f4c01...

Which is incredibility short term thinking. You're in strategic competition, and you compromise you position for a bit of cash?

$1,000,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money for them, why would it matter to them?

At least twice. Luckily, that's the max number

https://kalshi.com/markets/controlh/house-winner/controlh-20...

https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-will-win-the-house-...

Luckily, the oval office is on the ground floor, so it's safe to stand next to the windows

I feel this is a facile interpretation of the phrase, kind of like complaining that "Measure Twice Cut Once" would lead to selling illegally adulterated flour. A more steel-man interpretation of POSIWID--the way I think it's intended to be understood--would be:

"The practical outcomes of a system over the long-term reveal something important of the the true-preferences of the various interests which control that system, and these interests may be very different from the system's stated goals."

> The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients... These are obviously false. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible, but curing cancer is hard, so they only manage about two-thirds.

I don't see the contradiction here. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible. "What it does" is cure as many patients as possible. The fact that as many patients as possible is currently (presumably) two-thirds is irrelevant. If major advancements in medicine or new types of cancer emerged which changed the percentage of people cured it wouldn't matter at all. "What it does" and "the purpose of the system" is still unchanged.

“If a system is maintained over an extended period and has observed behavioral traits that are consistent within that period, that is, in itself, strong evidence that those behavioral traits are consistent with the purpose for which the system is permitted to exist” is kind of a mouthful, though, and there is value in succinctness.

(Although there is another message, there, too: “the purpose of a system, insofar as it can be said to exist separate from what it actually does, has no weight in justifying the system’s existence or design”.)

Great read. I've always noticed that the type of argument invoked is often less telling than when and in which context you invoke that argument.

You can make a lot of claims and they can match to reality a lot - normally people think of evaluating things in terms of a strict "does this fit or does this not", but it's often the meta-style (why do you keep bringing up that argument in that context?) that's important, even if it's not "logically bulletproof".

Wow that post is bad. The author clearly never actually attempted to understand what POSWID actually means and where it is coming from. Perhaps, instead of looking at Twitter, they should have opened Wikipedia. Or, better yet, Stafford Beers books (though admittedly, he was a pretty atrocious writer).

The follow-up is slightly better. But still not very convincing, IMO. They get far too stuck on a literal interpretation. Of something that self-describes as a heuristic.

You shouldn't be downvoted for this absolutely plausible prediction.

> Aren't all the AI companies saying that AI poses even a greater threat to humanity?

20-30 years ago eco-terrorists bombed and burned down a number of biological research laboratories and other targets, because of the perceived risks of gene technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front#Notable...

Given all the current talk (and the famous scifi movies) about the risks of AI, I am a bit puzzled how there are no similar activists groups trying to sabotage AI facilities.

What is it that made the risk from gene manipulation feel so much more real and leading to actions, than the current AI risk? The Terminator movie franchise is more famous than any scifi movies about gene technology. (Edit: I guess Jurassic Park franchise surpasses The Terminator.)

That's not wha the designation means. You're looking for some interpretation of the term that makes this not a contradiction, and such do exist to be found, but those aren't the correct definition.

Ugh, sorry for the broken link, I even pasted the same string into a new tab to make sure it worked because I thought the period at the end looked weird, and it was fine. Dunno how it got mangled.

[EDIT] Oh man, yours is like that too? WTF.

[EDIT2] If I follow your link, hit the 404 page, then add a period at the end of the URL, it does load. God that's strange.

Working link: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-...

HN separates trailing dots from URLs, so that you can have working URLs at the end of a sentence. Hence you have to percent-encode trailing dots if they are a necessary part of the actual URL. (Same for some other punctuation characters, probably.)

This behavior is common for auto-hyperlinking of URLs in running text, so it’s bad practice to have such URLs.