Zuckerberg is number one?

>Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.

I don't get it. Aren't these the same things that Anthropic was trying to negotiate?

Edit: a comment here explains it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188473#47190614

Redirect every tweet to x-cancel link: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/xcancelcom-redirect...

Saves you the hastle of visiting that shit-show.

WTF is this garbage site?

This tweet (from Under Secretary of State Jeremy Lewin) explains it:

https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230

https://xcancel.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/20275940728110982...

The OpenAI-DoW contract says "all lawful uses", and then reiterates the existing statutory limits on DoW operations. So it basically spells out in more detail what "all lawful uses" actually means under existing law. Of course, I expect it leaves interpreting that law up to the government, and Congress may change that law in the future.

Anthropic wanted to go beyond that. They wanted contractual limitations on those use cases that are stronger than the existing statutory limitations.

OpenAI has essentially agreed to a political fudge in which the Pentagon gets "all lawful uses" along with some ineffective language which sounds like what Anthropic wanted but is actually weaker. Anthropic wasn't willing to accept the fudge.

Sam probably told them they can renegotiate those restrictions in a year or so when the drama has died down.

This is a actaully a government bailout of OpenAI. Investors gave it a bunch of money earlier knowing this was going to happen. Greg Brockman is a major Republican donor for 2026. Nice for OpenAI.

PR spin/lying while behind closed doors agreeing to it. What's hard to understand about OpenAI lying?

Altman publicly claimed he had no financial stake in OpenAI to emphasize his mission-driven focus. In 2024 it was revealed that Altman personally owned the OpenAI Startup Fund.

In May 2024, actress Scarlett Johansson accused Altman of intentionally mimicking her voice for ChatGPT's "Sky" persona after she had explicitly declined to work with them.

When OpenAI’s aggressive non-disparagement agreements were leaked, which threatened to strip departing employees of all their vested equity (potentially millions of dollars) if they criticized the company, Altman claimed he was unaware of the "provision."

My theory is that they both went through normal procurement processes. At some point, one of Palantir's forward deployed sales agents slapped someone's arm at the golph course and said, yes we can automously kill with our AI agents. Anthropic, having little to do with the kind of 'AI' in a use case that made sense for, declined.

I know the reaction to this, if you're a rational observer, is "OpenAI have cut corners or made concessions that Anthropic did not, that's the only thing that makes sense."

However, if you live in the US and pay a passing attention to our idiotic politics, you know this is right out of the Trump playbook. It goes like this:

* Make a negotiation personal

* Emotionally lash out and kill the negotiation

* Complete a worse or similar deal, with a worse or similar party

* Celebrate your worse deal as a better deal

Importantly, you must waste enormous time and resources to secure nothing of substance.

That's why I actually believe that OpenAI will meet the same bar Anthropic did, at least for now. Will they continue to, in the same way Anthropic would have? Seems unlikely, but we'll see.

No, the difference is that the government agrees to no "unlawful" use as determined by the government.

Anthropic said that mass surveillance was per se prohibited even if the government self-certified that it was lawful.

You really think someone would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/just-go-on-the-internet-and-t...

Well tweets aren't legally binding, so chances are he's just outright lying so they can have their cake (DoD contracts) and eat it too (no bad PR)

Makes 100% sense.

They said yes to the same thing.

And then Microsoft forced him back in on the grounds of: he's a scumbag but he's our scumbag so he's untouchable

Why only have the cake when you can eat it too

The deal was only possible because anthropic stayed by their convictions. OpenAI didn't have agency in that. You're making it sound like Altman orchestrated the whole thing.

You’re right.

The people who actually know stuff about the world are reality TV stars, Fox News hosts, and podcasters just asking questions.

Those are the people with actual knowledge.

What else can they do? Would you recommend they stay silent? It sounds like they are no longer the gatekeepers of this technology or they never were to begin with.

All they did was say they didn’t want their company to do something. They never said they had the power to ensure that.

Hoorah! shock and awe