We Will Not Be Divided (notdivided.org)
2488 points by BloondAndDoom 21 hours ago
grey-area 14 hours ago
This has much broader implications for the US economy and rule of law in the US.
If government procurement rules intended for national security risks can be abused as a way to punish Anthropic for perceived lack of loyalty, why not any other company that displeases the administration like Apple or Amazon?
This marks an important turning point for the US.
heresie-dabord 10 hours ago
> much broader implications
Setting aside the spectacular metastasis of a lawless kakistocracy that is literally rewriting the facts on record...
Anthropic's leadership has wisely attempted to make it clear that its product is not fit for the US DoD's purpose/objective, which is automated killing at scale.
It would be (is) grossly, historically negligent to operate weapons with LLMs. Anthropic built systems for a thuggocracy that only understands bribery, blackmail, and force.
ricksunny 11 minutes ago
turning point? The episode is literally playing out the AEC's (read: war-footed government) 1954 Oppenheimer security-clearance hearing in real-time for a fresh modern-day audience.
herval 5 hours ago
this entire administration has been a constant stream of "important turning point for the US" moments
ericmay 5 hours ago
I think most, perhaps all of those "important turning points" aren't really important turning points but just business as usual.
FartyMcFarter an hour ago
TOMDM an hour ago
busko 14 hours ago
Yep, where does your trust lay now? It's been a minute of pretending it'll be okay.
adventured 6 hours ago
Nothing has changed in decades regarding this. People just like to pretend something new is happening, because they're extremely desperate to proclaim a fundamental turning / ending of the US (which is why every single event brings out those claims: this time is different! America will never recover from this! etc).
US tech companies were previously forced into compliance with PRISM or threatened with destruction (see: escalating fines to infinity against Yahoo, forcing their eventual compliance).
You know what's new? This administration is doing out in the open what used to go on quietly.
lostlogin 5 hours ago
coldtea 6 hours ago
Rather it's business as usual.
bambax 13 hours ago
The turning point happened when Trump was reelected. One could argue the turning point happened Jan. 6 2020 and nobody truly cared. The consequence should have been for all insurrectionists and Trump himself to be tried for treason and be imprisoned indefinitely. Yet here we are.
jmull 8 hours ago
> The consequence should have been for all insurrectionists and Trump himself to be tried for treason and be imprisoned indefinitely.
People have this intuitive sense that there's some kind of authority of truth or justice, an available recourse that we could've and should've used.
But that sense is incorrect.
What we actually have the political and justice systems that Trump and his adherent have, so far, quite successfully subverted.
childintime 8 hours ago
It was when the supreme court judged he could act like a king, the summer before he was elected, inventing things the constitution never said and setting the example of lawlessness Trump now follows up on confidently.
anon84873628 7 hours ago
shevy-java 11 hours ago
I'd agree - Trump fulfils the criteria of treason.
It's interesting to see that nothing happens despite this. Now he started another war to distract from his involvement in the huge Epstein network. Also, by the way, quite interesting to see how many people were involved here; there is no way Ghislaine could solo-organise all of that yet she is the only one in prison. That makes objectively no sense.
formerly_proven 10 hours ago
tim333 8 hours ago
miki123211 7 hours ago
The same is true about Meta and US antitrust law, or the GDPR and DMA in Europe.
Governments should not be permitted to introduce regulations against companies of this kind if the regulations can be enforced selectively and with regulator discretion, as the GDPR and antitrust definitely are. The free-speech implications are staggering.
alopha 14 hours ago
Trump was threatening Netflix for having a democrat on the board last week. They seized 10% of Intel. They forced Nvidia to tithe 25% of China revenue into a slush fund. The FCC has been used to censor comedy. The ship has sailed and the only consequence has been hand-wringing.
khalic 13 hours ago
Yeah the passivity of the US population will be remembered for generations. Of course it's the people talking about freedom the most that do the least, as usual, big mouths are antithetical to actions.
bsenftner 10 hours ago
raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago
oefrha 13 hours ago
pif 10 hours ago
jachee 13 hours ago
pjc50 13 hours ago
But the Dow is over 50,000!
That is, the money doesn't care so long as it's still profitable. When the recession comes a Democrat will be allowed back in to fix things.
See Liz Truss.
kkotak 9 minutes ago
blfr 13 hours ago
selimthegrim 8 hours ago
15%?
pineaux 13 hours ago
Its called corporatism and is a part of classical fascism.
deepsquirrelnet 8 hours ago
Isn’t there some kind of term for when the government controls the means of production. I’ll think about it. It’s one of those terms that’s been thrown around so loosely by this regime you knew they were going there.
goodpoint 12 hours ago
It's a core part of fascism.
goku12 13 hours ago
I don't see a good reason to downvote you, though that's a pattern here these days. But I do have a question about your statement. This move certainly has the hallmarks of fascism. But how is it corporatism when it's the elected government that's trying to punish a corporation? Granted that this regime is deep in the pockets of the corporations and billionaires. But it looks like they would have spared Anthropic if they capitulated to the regime's demands and bent their back over. This seems more like retribution for refusal of loyalty rather than corporate sabotage.
Boxxed 12 hours ago
MzxgckZtNqX5i 12 hours ago
throawayonthe 4 hours ago
*capitalism ftfy
keybored 10 hours ago
Corporations learn about “first they came for [Apple Inc.] but I am not [Apple Inc.] so I didn’t do anything”.
rambojohnson 6 hours ago
outside of just the tech sector, this country has already crossed MANY irreversible turning points. also, good luck with your midterm elections. we have started war with Iran. cheers from Barcelona from this American refugee.
iso1631 6 hours ago
Not really a turning point, the US has been turning for months, ever since the felatio of inauguration. This is just another rung on the ladder
jmyeet 5 hours ago
This isn’t new. Maybe some people are just now realizing it.
Take the stated tool for this action, the Defense Production Act ("DPA") [1]. It was passed in 1950. What does it cover? Well, lots of things. The DPA has been invoked many times over 76 years.
Notably in 1980 it was expanded to include "energy", I guess in response to the 1970s OPEC Oil Crisis.
Remember during he pandemic when gas prices skyrocketed? As an aside, that was Trump's fault. But given that "energy" is a "material good" under the DPA, the government could've invoked it to tackle high energy prices and didn't.
So, the government is willing to invoke the DPA to protect corporate and wealthy interests, which now includes military applications of AI for imperialist purposes, but never for you, the average citizen. IT's weird how that keeps consistently happening.
The US government has consistently acted to further the interests of US corporations and the ultra-wealthy. You probably just haven't been paying attention until now.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
rpcorb 9 hours ago
[deleted]
c54 8 hours ago
Your language suggests you’re an ideological supporter of trump but I’m curious:
What exactly is being imposed by anthropic?
This is from the anthropic letter:
> We held to our exceptions for two reasons. First, we do not believe that today’s frontier AI models are reliable enough to be used in fully autonomous weapons. Allowing current models to be used in this way would endanger America’s warfighters and civilians. Second, we believe that mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
Do you see these views as “left wing”? Or what do you disagree with here?
hirako2000 8 hours ago
It isn't a left wing stance though. It's standing for the constitution. At the cost of going against the illegal state demands.
Compliance with the DoD doesn't remove big tech's complicity.
altmanaltman 11 hours ago
I would argue we're miles away from an important turning point, it's been turning so much since then, its basically a full circle now
frogperson 4 hours ago
Im sorry to say the turning point has well passed. The US is a facist country with leaders who will flaunt the rule of law.
Please memorize the 14 points of fascism, you will see examples of this multiple times a day. Its ecerywhere.
throawayonthe 4 hours ago
i genuinely do not understand why anyone is acting like this is something new; has this not been the status quo since forever?
futhermore this is kind of a naive framing painting the state as somehow separate from majority of the capital...
cmorgan31 3 hours ago
Are you claiming it has been status quo for the US government to king make companies through the usage of the defense protection act when one entity refuses to remove safeguards? Do you have any examples or is this just the worldview that aligns with your own?
gentoo 3 hours ago
Sure, the state has always had theoretical power to do this, but when was the last time something remotely like this actually happened?
grey-area 3 hours ago
No, this is far from the status quo for US government, it is not ordinary corruption, nor is it going to stop here.
Trump and associates have used the machinery of state to attack their enemies, attacked and belittled the judiciary while trying to subvert it, and demanded fealty from large businesses under threat of destroying them. It is unprecedented, reckless and a very dangerous moment, unfortunately not just the US has to live with the consequences.
If you think it is business as usual you need to do some reading of history, specifically a century ago in Germany.
jspdown 12 hours ago
Domestic mass surveillance might feel tolerable when you live in the country conducting it. But how would you feel about other countries adopting similar policies, and thereby mass-surveilling the American people? Because that's exactly what these policies authorize when applied to the rest of the world.
amunozo 12 hours ago
Americans always think they're exceptional so they have the divine right to do things that the rest cannot.
Dansvidania 12 hours ago
Maybe that’s why they like Israel so much.
raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago
I would feel much better about other countries mass surveillance than the US. China for instance can’t do nearly as much to me as the US justice system can.
thunky 8 hours ago
Ok so now connect the mass surveillance system to an automated killing system that can blow you up in the grocery store because you're standing in line next to its target.
bloqs 8 hours ago
raw_anon_1111 5 hours ago
victorio 11 hours ago
The way the anthropic statement was written really stood out to me. How they posture themselves in favour of surveillance for foreign countries or the existence of fully autonomous weapons if they don't threaten US citizen lifes.
I wonder if this is how some non minority of American thinks or was just worded like that to try to appeal to the "most radical patriots"
hnfong 8 hours ago
I'm pretty neutral in this fiasco, but if a company is willing to consider *in principle* providing services to the *Department of War*, they'd better be OK with their services being used to conduct surveillance or kill people of other countries...
I think war is bad and generally a stupid thing to do, but my point is that if they were negotiating terms with the department at all, it's really a given they'd be OK with the stuff you took issue with.
davesque an hour ago
I don't think it will feel even remotely tolerable in the US. I've been heavily critical of Trump on a regular basis on the public internet ever since he showed up 10 years ago. I doubt a government surveillance AI would miss this. Of course, there are probably millions of people like me, but given the behavior of the government recently, I really have to wonder what they might do to people like me once we've been put on a list.
ozgung 11 hours ago
The bad news for American people is that "others" are pretty good at these technologies. When I read an important AI paper chances are all the names on it are non-American, even for papers from American labs. In a real war, this becomes problematic.
Every nation has some bias but I think Americans have power poisoning for being the dominant power for so long. They think they are entitled to do anything and believe they are the good guys in the history. Well...
lostlogin 5 hours ago
What’s an American name?
I thought the US was a country of immigrants (or was before it started hunting them)?
mlrtime 11 hours ago
When you look at the world as a action movie with good/bad guys, then you're going to have a pretty bad time.
There are only good/bad people for moments in time. Some are good for longer than others.
But I get it, anti-American sentiment is very popular right now.
kakacik 4 hours ago
LudwigNagasena 6 hours ago
It’s especially ironic considering the title and the fact that many employees are not US citizens.
kace91 20 hours ago
Among other consequences, if Anthropic ends up being killed it’s going to be just another nail in the coffin of trust in America.
Companies who subscribed will find themselves without an important tool because the president went on a rant, and might wonder if it’s safe to depend on other American companies.
9dev 15 hours ago
It is absolutely unsafe to depend upon American companies, and I can guarantee you that all over the world, people are actively looking for alternatives already. You never know what happens next, things that used to take years happen in a single Truth Social post now, and no matter how twisted your worst nightmare scenarios look, this ridiculous band of crooks in charge of the USA manages to one-up them.
skeledrew 19 hours ago
When you put it like that, it makes me almost want to wish for Anthropic to die from this. But the blow to the field in general would be huge, and I benefit from their service as well.
ExoticPearTree 7 hours ago
Unfortunately, every country has a law somewhere saying it can take private property at will if it is in the national interest.
It's not only the US being special in this case.
The problem is pretty simple: there is money to be made and someone will do what the Pentagon wants. Will it be worse in capabilities than Anthropic? Probably, but as long as it can be used to wage autonomous war wherever the US military decides, it will be good enough.
Anthropic can stick to their beliefs as much as they want, but it will not change the outcome, maybe just postpone it a bit.
On an unrelated note, I think the Pentagon erred when it labeled them a supply chain vulnerability, they should have used the DPA to make them do what they need. Less drama and much cheaper compared to replacing them with a whole different company.
segmondy 15 hours ago
Anthropic will just move out of the US. A lot of scientists fled Nazi Germany in the early stages. A lot of them fled to USA and end up being part of the Manhattan project that gave the Abomb that helped US win and end the war. We are going to bleed a lot of AI researches and engineers.
skeptic_ai 14 hours ago
USA can’t just deny the ability to leave if you are deemed to be important for national security?
KellyCriterion 13 hours ago
refurb 15 hours ago
Oh come on. Saying “no” is not eroding trust, it’s taking a stand.
When the US banded human embryo research did that erode trust? I didn’t hear anything about that at the time.
DaSHacka 11 hours ago
Don't you know enforcing whats best for your citizens clearly erodes trust? Just keep selling off your future for short term gains! Anything else is heckin problematic :(
thimabi 21 hours ago
The problem with forcing public policy on companies is that companies are ultimately made from individuals, and surely you can’t force public policy down people’s throats.
I’m sure nothing good can come out of strong-arming some of the brightest scientists and engineers the U.S. has. Such a waste of talent trying to make them bend over to the government’s wishes… instead of actually fostering innovation in the very competitive AI industry.
timr 20 hours ago
I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to the government. Both are half right.
You can argue that the government refusing to do any business with company A is overreach, I suppose, but I imagine that the next logical escalation in this rhetorical slapfight is going to be the government saying "we cannot guarantee that any particular use will not include some version of X, and therefore we have to prevent working with this supplier"...which I sort of see?
Just to take the metaphor to absurdity, imagine that a maker of canned tomatoes decided to declare that their product cannot be used to "support a war on terror". Regardless of your feelings on wars on terror and/or canned tomatoes, the government would be entirely rational to avoid using that supplier.
inkysigma 20 hours ago
I think the bigger insanity here is the labeling of a supply chain risk. It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. It's another when it actively attempts to isolate Anthropic for political reasons.
ted_dunning 19 hours ago
ef2efe 20 hours ago
timr 20 hours ago
snickerbockers 17 hours ago
galleywest200 20 hours ago
The government declaring a domestic company as a supply chain threat is a tad more than “refusing to do business” don’t you think?
thimabi 20 hours ago
> The Department of War is threatening to […] Invoke the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic to serve their model to the military and "tailor its model to the military's needs"
This issue is about more than the government blacklisting a company for government procurement purposes.
From what I understand, the government is floating the idea of compelling Anthropic — and, by extension, its employees — to do as the DoD pleases.
If the employees’ resistance is strong enough, there’s no way this will serve the government’s interests.
syllogism 12 hours ago
They're labelling Anthropic a supply chain risk, without even the pretense that this is in fact true. They're perfectly content to use the tool _themselves_, but they claim that an unwillingness to sign whatever ToS DoW asks marks the company a traitor that should be blacklisted from the economy.
jakeydus 20 hours ago
The government is doing far more than “refusing to do business” here.
thereitgoes456 20 hours ago
The President is crashing out on X because a company didn’t do what they wanted. “Forcing” is not a binary. Do you seriously believe that the government’s behavior here is acceptable and has no chilling effect on future companies?
direwolf20 3 hours ago
One of the options they're discussing, which is legal according to this law, is to simply force Anthropic to do what they want. As in Anthropic will be committing a felony if they don't do what the DoKLoP wants, and the CEO will go to jail and be replaced by someone who will.
jwpapi 20 hours ago
I mean Secretary of War can not act any other way to be honest. It’s just a fucked up situation.
ted_dunning 19 hours ago
gmerc 13 hours ago
Sweet summer child, the purpose of government is a monopoly on forcing things down people's throats. When people lose control of their government that monopoly doesn't go away, especially when the Don running the show has blackmail on every influential person in society taken from a decades long intelligence operation by offing it's leader.
A vast number of people in positions of responsibility right know have their life at the mercy of the redaction pen and are ultimately going to do whatever it takes to keep that pen out of the "wrong hands"
piskov 21 hours ago
> I’m sure nothing good can come out of strong-arming some of the brightest scientists and engineers the U.S. has
And where would they emigrate? Russia? China? UAE? :-)
EdNutting 20 hours ago
The UK and Europe welcome the US Footgun Operation. Plenty of opportunities for those top researchers and engineers over here.
The EU (which is not the same as Europe), is also looking a bit sharper on AI regulation at the moment (for now… not perfect but sharper etc etc).
dmix 20 hours ago
piskov 20 hours ago
SauntSolaire 20 hours ago
thimabi 20 hours ago
zymhan 20 hours ago
Well that's quite a leap to make. Plenty of room in between those options.
csomar 19 hours ago
> ... UAE? :-)
At least you are not paying taxes for the things you don't agree on. It's indeed a strange time we are living in.
5o1ecist 17 hours ago
> We hope our leaders will put aside their differences and stand together to continue to refuse the Department of War's current demands for permission to use our models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight.
This is a trap. Two, I guess, but let's take the first one:
Domestic mass surveillance. Domestic.
Remember the eyes agreements: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/are-the-eyes-agreements-abo...
Expanding:
> These pacts enable member countries to share signals intelligence (SIGINT), including surveillance data gathered globally. Disclosures, notably from Edward Snowden in 2013, revealed that allies intentionally collect data on each other's citizens - bypassing domestic restrictions like the US ban on NSA spying on Americans - then exchange it.
Banning domestic mass surveillance is irrelevant.
The eyes-agreements allow them (respective participating countries) to share data with each other. Every country spies on every other country, with every country telling every other country what they have gathered.
This renders laws, which are preventing The State from spying on its own citizens, as irrelevant. They serve the purpose of being evidence of mass manipulation.
ozgung 13 hours ago
You all want to feel safe just because you are a US citizen but this is a mass surveillance technology on global level. It’s nothing like some secret agent spying on a KGB asset in Berlin like in the old days. We are writing on HN, are we on American soil? Not really. No one asked me for passport. This is not a “domestic” space. Everything here can be automatically and legally spied on. And this applies to everything digital. Spy bots don’t have the concept of “domestic” or any way to identify citizenship. And if Google or TikTok can spy on you, your government and ChatGPT/Grok’s agentic secret agents can definitely spy on you. I’m sure they have better loopholes than the Eyes thing, if they really need one.
direwolf20 3 hours ago
Spying pertains to actual assets, not cyberspace. They can seize servers and tap fiber links. They can issue subpoenas against people and companies. They can arrest people. They can't spy on the color blue, or the concept of Hacker News. They can spy on the Hacker News server, Y Combinator, or dang.
eecc 14 hours ago
It is relevant. Anthropic would have argued the US military could not use its tools to process data gathered by foreign agencies when it applied to US citizens or soil.
So there you have it
gmerc 13 hours ago
> We hope
No. Hope is not a strategy. Too much of the techno optimist future narratives we use to coat over the increasingly screaming cognitive dissonance as we see what keeps us civil, from each other's throats, decline, smothered by the rise of the broligarchy.
What's happening here is not about AI. It's a loyalty test, administered to every major actor in the economy, the more influential, the more ruthless and earlier.
Your core values, in exchange for taxpayer money access and loyalty to the Don, an offer few can refuse.
And the choice will come for everyone. It's a distillation attack to filter the
- DEI for Grants - Your officer's oath to not kill civilians by word of your leader for continued career - AI Safety for non blacklisting - Your immigirant employee's location for us not harassing your offices in person - Your trans neighbour shipped to a reeducation camp and gender reassignment for the safety of your family.
Becoming complicit is the ultimate loyalty
So stop hope. Stop asking. Demand, Force, Resist.
``` Do not go gentle into that long night, The righteous should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light ```
supriyo-biswas 13 hours ago
The point that I've not seen someone making: do you even need LLMs for domestic surveillance? I can grab a copy of EmbeddingGemma or Qwen3-embedding or a similar model and do semantic clustering of existing data, since the "retrieval" is the most important part for such applications, not its integration into a LLM.
5o1ecist an hour ago
Big Brother is observer, judge and executioner at the same time.
pasquinelli 15 hours ago
if it doesn't matter, why is the DoD pushing for it?
dgellow 14 hours ago
Power play? My understanding is that they want to see companies bend the knee publicly
az226 13 hours ago
Because they want to do domestic mass surveillance.
pasquinelli 5 hours ago
ChrisKnott 16 hours ago
The citation for your quote appears to be an unsourced Reddit post.
The agreement at the heart of 5 Eyes is to not surveil the other nations - this must be up there for most persistently misunderstood fact among techies (probably why AI spits it out)
dijit 15 hours ago
Unless there’s new information, this is exactly what the Snowden leaks exposed.
Snowden wasn’t showing the world the NSA surveillance systems against them; he was trying to show that the US was illegally spying on its own citizens by leveraging the five-eyes countries to collect and aggregate the data on their behalf.
b112 14 hours ago
athrowaway3z 15 hours ago
Who are you going to cite?
Snowden, as a very rare exception, did show clearly that the government agencies are quite capable of not providing anything to cite.
Intermernet 15 hours ago
The agreement, conveniently, isn't legally binding. It's a gentleman's agreement between utter scoundrels, formed to give a semblance of trustworthiness.
As an Australian, I wouldn't trust it at all. The US government has already asked the Australian government for highly expanded information on Australian citizens, and that's above the table.
Stop believing what these people are telling you. They have an awful track record, and the people making the statements now are even worse than the previous people.
rockskon 12 hours ago
There's obviously gaps in domestic mass surveillance they've gotten from allies or else they wouldn't care so much about using Anthropic for it.
rdtsc 16 hours ago
That's always been the loophole. But it involved an extra step so they are just trying to get rid of that one annoyance.
Here is an interesting thing to think about which country spies on Americans the most and how? Are there New Zealand commandos sneaking around the shores tapping cables? Moles working in the AT&T for the Canadian government? What happens if one of those individuals get caught, are they quietly allowed to leave, and if they commit any crimes do the charges get erased magically? Otherwise, if that doesn't happen there is danger they'll grab our spies in their countries in turn. Or they just blatantly pass lists around of who works for whom so they don't interfere with each other as that would preclude getting the data back through the loop to the NSA.
There is of course another loophole and that is private entities collecting data. The Constitution doesn't say anything about that, so the government figures it's fare game if they just pay a company to collect the data and then they query later. They didn't collect it so it's not "spying".
RobotToaster 15 hours ago
I imagine they're officially sent in some "diplomatic" capacity.
Anne Sacoolas (the woman who mowed down a British teenager with her car, but escaped because she had diplomatic immunity) turned out to be a senior CIA spy.
graemep 12 hours ago
segmondy 15 hours ago
Not just that, but with how unfriendly we have been to the world, there's no guarantee that they will keep sharing as they have in the past.
permo-w 15 hours ago
permo-w 15 hours ago
It's amusing to imagine spies from puny former British colonies snooping around the AT&T offices in trench coats and fedoras, but if this is the case, more likely they just share access to data from remote systems
busko 15 hours ago
mellosouls 13 hours ago
Despite this comment focusing on "domestic", because it highlights workarounds I read it as reinforcing the tone-deaf implication in the letter that using the models to spy on non-Americans is ok.
1vuio0pswjnm7 41 minutes ago
This appears to a form to collect the identities of past or present OpenAI and Google employees who share certain political views
It requires proof of employment, e.g., company email aaddress, photo of employee badge, and discloses a US-based "cloud computing" vendor where the identities will be stored in the cloud
After employment verification it claims the stored identities will be destroyed upon request. The site operator is apparently anonymous
One can imagine this list could be useful to multiple parties for multiple purposes
ArchieScrivener 20 hours ago
The USA showed itself to be a Command Economy that uses 'private enterprise' as a fascade of legitimacy during Covid. Without government spending, employment, and contracts, the USA would be net negative growth.
Now the DoD, who are by far the largest budgetary expense for the tax payer, wants us to believe they don't have a better Ai than current industry? That is a double sword admission; either they are exposing themselves again as economic decision makers, or admitting they spend money on routine BS with zero frontier war fighting capabilities.
Either way, it is beyond time to reform the Military and remove the majority of its leadership as incompetent stewards and strategists. That doesn't even include the massive security vulnerabilities in our supply chains given military needs in various countries. (Taiwan and Thailand)
aguyonhackern 19 hours ago
The US would not be net negative growth without government spending. Other components of GDP grow a lot, outside of recessions.
Sure if you immediately stopped government spending today we'd have negative growth today but that's not because other things aren't growing, it's because you just removed part of the base that existed last year. That would be true of literally pretty much any economy ever, or anything that's growing and you decided to remove a chunk of the base from.
And yes I absolutely believe the government does not have better generative AI than Anthropic or its competitors.
conductr 18 hours ago
Covid shutdown should have killed our economy, nothing short of government spending prevented otherwise.
So many people in the US live a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle, that the covid lockdowns without government spending would have likely devolved into zombie apocalypse territory where hungry people were ransacking homes in more affluent neighborhoods (yes, even occupied homes). This is why people also bought lots of guns and ammo during Covid. You may think those people are crackpots, but I feel we actually got very close to it happening.
My local food bank (big city) ran out of supplies just as they announced the first waves of stimulus or whatever they called it (the weekly checks). So I’m pretty sure we were literally only days away from that being a reality.
ipaddr 16 hours ago
Humorist2290 11 hours ago
At some point in the not so distant future, it seems entirely likely for the US to bail out OpenAI / Nvidia / etc using national security as justification. Democrats and Republicans really can get along as long as their donors get what they want. No matter how the regime changes in the coming years, the DoD will keep getting funding, and that funding will increasingly go to vendors who don't mind killing people.
Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex, and 60 years later it's eating everyone's lunch.
duped 20 hours ago
> who are by far the largest budgetary expense for the tax payer
not even top 3
ArchieScrivener 13 hours ago
You are 100% wrong. You listed entitlements. National Defense is half of all discretionary spending.
Homeland Security is less than 1/6th the budget of DoD alone.
rustystump 18 hours ago
Let me guess without looking up, debt interest, gov pension, medicare?
duped 17 hours ago
jrflowers 13 hours ago
>or admitting they spend money on routine BS with zero frontier war fighting capabilities.
Trying to imagine somebody that doesn’t know that the military buys dumb stuff and for some reason a human doesn’t come to mind. I keep picturing a horse
csomar 19 hours ago
> The USA showed itself to be a Command Economy that uses 'private enterprise' as a fascade of legitimacy during Covid.
This is the case for every government/nation in the world. The difference between communism and capitalism, is that the Politburo in capitalism allows the natural selection of elites based on their performance on an open economy. At least that was the case until 2011.
dang 20 hours ago
Here's the sequence (so far) in reverse order - did I miss any important threads?
Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188697 - Feb 2026 (31 comments)
I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47186677 - Feb 2026 (872 comments)
President Trump bans Anthropic from use in government systems - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47186031 - Feb 2026 (111 comments)
Google workers seek 'red lines' on military A.I., echoing Anthropic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47175931 - Feb 2026 (132 comments)
Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47173121 - Feb 2026 (1527 comments)
The Pentagon Feuding with an AI Company Is a Bad Sign - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47168165 - Feb 2026 (33 comments)
Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160226 - Feb 2026 (157 comments)
The Pentagon threatens Anthropic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47154983 - Feb 2026 (125 comments)
US Military leaders meet with Anthropic to argue against Claude safeguards - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47145551 - Feb 2026 (99 comments)
Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47142587 - Feb 2026 (128 comments)
mkl 19 hours ago
Altman says OpenAI agrees with Anthropic’s red lines in Pentagon dispute - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47187488 - Feb 2026 (8 comments)
kombine 16 hours ago
How can anybody take this guy seriously?
epistasis 16 hours ago
Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance (eff.org) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160226 (160 comments)
dang 16 hours ago
Added - thanks
ok_dad 20 hours ago
Sam Altman tells staff at an all-hands that OpenAI is negotiating a deal with the Pentagon, after Trump orders the end of Anthropic contracts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188698
wood_spirit 14 hours ago
The talk about declaring anthropic a supply chain security risk (which doesn’t just remove it from DoW but also all the contractors and suppliers that supply DoW) was also accompanied by a completely different threat: to declare it national security need to take over then company.
Prediction: in time, OpenAI will be declared such to privatise profits but socialise losses
beng-nl 14 hours ago
Interesting. George hotz has said his motivation to start tinygrad was the worry that nvidia would be nationalized.
goku12 13 hours ago
There is just one rule. If they mention it, they'll do it.
KellyCriterion 13 hours ago
this would pulverize the stock value then, right?
or would the government just buy the stocks on the market?
datsci_est_2015 9 hours ago
Horseshoe theory applied to nationalization of companies. It would be cathartic if it weren’t so grim.
davidw 21 hours ago
"We hope our leaders will..." I realize things are moving quickly, and the stakes are high here, but thinking about what happens if the hopes are not met might be a next step.
gnarlouse 18 hours ago
Mankind is doing what it does best at scale: sprinting mindlessly into problematic scenarios because the species is fragmented and has arbitrarily established concepts of groups defined by region, race, ideology, etc.
As a species, this is just natural selection.
keybored 9 hours ago
Sure. It’s just that sprinting is dictated by money.
Money rules region, race, ideology, etc.
moogly 20 hours ago
If they're truly principled, and these are true red lines, given no other recourse, I would be impressed if Anthropic decided to shut down the company. Won't happen, but I would be smashing that F key if they did.
The other two definitely never would in a million years.
anigbrowl 17 hours ago
If I had decision input at Anthropic I'd be giving serious consideration to reincorporating in the EU or Japan, and also doubling or tripling my personal legal and security budget.
paganel 13 hours ago
plumthreads 18 hours ago
Anthropic have a pretty progressive corporate governance structure, so there is a good argument that they will stay true to their principles. However, this will likely be the biggest test for how strong that governance structure is up to now.
goku12 13 hours ago
voganmother42 21 hours ago
Tech leaders are a joke
goku12 13 hours ago
More like a nightmare. This isn't happening by accident. They aren't being opportunistic either. They're playing a game that they planned at least two decades ago. If the books they wrote and published openly aren't evidence enough, you can look at the Epstein files. Look past all the obvious horrific crimes in it, and you'll the see signs of their numerous interventions in society through large scale social engineering, that got us to the dystopia we're in now.
propagandist 20 hours ago
Yeah, it's a nice gesture, but having watched Google handle the protests in recent years and their culture inching a step closer to Amazon, I do not foresee their leadership being swayed by employee resistance. They'll either quietly sign an agreement and discreetly implement it, or they will go scorched earth on their employees again.
elAhmo 19 hours ago
So much for the hope with leaders such as Sam and Dario
medi8r 21 hours ago
Needs a union. With strikes and all that jazz.
_bohm 19 hours ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. This letter is completely toothless, and what you're suggesting is literally the only thing that these people could do that would make a difference.
ngcazz 13 hours ago
globular-toast 13 hours ago
largbae 17 hours ago
The signatories of this (letter, petition, whatever) are the same folks who profit from creating this Pandora's Box. If you don't want it opened, stop making it?
w4yai 17 hours ago
There are other valid use cases than war for AI.
largbae 17 hours ago
Of course there are. But once it exists, a technology will be used for all purposes. The choice is in the making, anything else is virtue signaling.
etchalon 14 hours ago
tgv 14 hours ago
Very few. Most use is a pure negative for society.
zppln 13 hours ago
War will be a comparatively honest use of this technology compared to how the likes of Google will monetize it going forward.
pokstad 16 hours ago
Then start your own company where you control the direction of the products. All these people make millions and only speak up after they are set for life.
keybored 10 hours ago
I’m torn. On the one hand it’s nice that the rank and file take a stand against extreme overreach. On the other hand these rank and file scientists, engineers, whatever are fostering a technology which has so many at-best questionable effects on all of society.
Idealists who “genuinely”[1] want to change the world “for the better”[1] will just move on to the next Interesting Problem if it ends up making the world worse.
pavel_lishin 6 hours ago
> We hope our leaders will put aside their differences and stand together to continue to refuse the Department of War's current demands for permission to use our models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight.
Hope is neat, but are the signatories willing to quit their jobs over this? Kind of a hollow threat if not.
drewda 5 hours ago
They put their names to their position publicly. That is meaningful action.
archydeb 5 hours ago
Well, some did. I was surprised to see so many anonymous signatories.
layla5alive 5 hours ago
raw_anon_1111 5 hours ago
They wrote a letter. Meaningless. How many are going to quit their highly compensated jobs over it?
robwwilliams 6 hours ago
Quitting their jobs? How is that the pragmatic or effective response?
dr_kretyn 5 hours ago
Quitting no. Quite quitting or internal turmoil could be beneficial. Of course, in case these people meaningfully contributed in the first place otherwise it's a good pretext to fire for cause without any severance.
iso1631 6 hours ago
Maybe their union will call a strike
ray_v 6 hours ago
Ha! Good one!
adfm 6 hours ago
You don’t need a union to quiet quit or throw a shoe.
pciexpgpu 24 minutes ago
The common people have viewed tech elites being out of touch. Tech elites have some sort of moral higher ground they like to espouse but rarely have the goods to show.
You are working on ads, slurping up data and trapping people into rage baits and dramas with an economy centered around marketing and influencer types.
I don't think these tech elites should decide arbitrarily by signing some fake elitist pledge.
The USA has a democratic way of resolving these things. It should not be in the hands of a few. The executive branch is a side effect of elections and should hold the line against these tech elites.
I don't agree with the essence of these nonsense pledges either: they are actively undermining the US while living and breathing here thanks to the most advanced military and defense systems on earth.
Why are these tech elites not including things like "we won't slurp up ad data" or "we will not work on dark patterns" because it's easy to come up with BS pledges and seem like 'we are so holier than thou'.
It is a bit infuriating because this resulted in the mess we are in. The income disparity between the tech elites (the entire tech industry) and the rest of the country is so huge that I don't think empty posturing and pledges and moral superiority matters.
I do not want to be associated with these elitist people who as a group are extremely educated, talented, impactful - but in one very very tiny piece in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't automatically make you the controller of the entire world's decisions.
davidmurdoch 7 hours ago
What is this supposed to do? OpenAI is already cozied up and in bed with Dept of War, they're already busy making lots of little surveillance babies.
marcd35 7 hours ago
about as much as all the people who signed the petition to stop/slow the rate of ai advancement - nothing other than pointing to it in the future when all has gone to shit and say, "told you so"
Meekro 20 hours ago
I've gathered that the dispute is over Anthropic's two red lines: mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. Is there any information (or rumors even) about what the specific request was? I can't believe the government would be escalating this hard over "we might want to do autonomous weapons in the vague, distant future" without a concrete, immediate request that Anthropic was denying.
Even if there was a desire for autonomous weapons (beyond what Anduril is already developing), I would think it would go through a standard defense procurement procedure, and the AI would be one of many components that a contractor would then try to build. It would have nothing to do with the existing contract between Anthropic and the Dept of War.
What, then, is this really about?
yoyohello13 20 hours ago
It’s about punishing a company that is not complying. It’s a show of force to deter any future objections on moral grounds from companies that want to do business with the US gov.
layer8 20 hours ago
My understanding is that it’s about the contract allowing Anthropic to refuse service when they deem a red line has been crossed. Hegseth and friends probably don’t want any discussions to even start, about whether a red line may be in the process of being crossed, and having to answer to that. They don’t want the legality or ethicality of any operation to be under Anthropic’s purview at all.
Meekro 20 hours ago
I think you're right, this isn't about a specific request but about defense contractors not getting to draw moral red lines. Palmer Luckey's statement on X/Twitter reflects the same idea: https://x.com/PalmerLuckey/status/2027500334999081294
The thinking seems to be that you can't have every defense contractor coming in with their own, separate set of red lines that they can adjudicate themselves and enforce unilaterally. Imagine if every missile, ship, plane, gun, and defense software builder had their own set of moral red lines and their own remote kill switch for different parts of your defense infrastructure. Palmer would prefer that the President wield these powers through his Constitutional role as commander-in-chief.
colonCapitalDee 17 hours ago
markisus 18 hours ago
jbritton 16 hours ago
dataflow 20 hours ago
> My understanding is that it’s about
What is "it" in your comment?
The refusal to sign a contract with Anthropic, or their designation as a supply chain risk?
layer8 20 hours ago
trinsic2 5 hours ago
you mean beyond this: [0]
>In 2025, reportedly Anthropic became the first AI company cleared for use in relation to classified operations and to handle classified information. This current controversy, however, began in January 2026 when, through a partnership with defense contractor Palantir, Anthropic came to suspect their AI had been used during the January 3 attack on Venezuela. In January 2026, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wrote to reiterate that surveillance against US persons and autonomous weapons systems were two “bright red lines” not to be crossed, or at least topics that needed to be handled with “extreme care and scrutiny combined with guardrails to prevent abuses.” You can also read Anthropic’s self-proclaimed core views on AI safety here, as well as their LLM, Claude’s, constitution here.
culi 19 hours ago
Before you leave a comment about how meaningless this is unless they do XYZ,
please realize that there's likely a group chat out there somewhere where all of these concerns have already been raised and considered. The best thing you can do is ask how you as an outsider can help support these organizers
XCSme 10 hours ago
This reminds me a bit of the Black Mirror episodes with the bees. Where the people whose names tweeted something were actually the targets...
doodlebugging 20 hours ago
The best way for AI companies to fight this would be to remind those who request this capability that the AI knows exactly where they live, where they hang out, and that any one of them can also be targeted by a rogue AI system with no human in the loop. Capabilities that they are requesting could jeopardize them, their personal assets, and their families if something goes haywire or, in the much more common case, where the AI is used as an attack tool by an outside adversary who has gained unauthorized access.
All of this should remain a bridge too far, forever.
EDIT: It is one level of bad when someone hacks a database containing personal healthcare data on most Americans as happened not long ago. A few years back, the OPM hack gave them all they needed to know about then-current and former government employees and service members and their families. Wait until a state-sponsored actor finds their way into the surveillance and targeting software and uses that back door to eliminate key adversarial personnel or to hold them hostage with threats against the things they value most so that the adversary builds a collection of moles who sell out everything in a vain attempt to keep themselves safe.
Of course we already know what happens when an adversary employs these techniques and that is why we are where we are right now.
autoexec 18 hours ago
The best way for government to fight that would be to remind those who refuse to comply with their demands that the government already knows exactly where they live, where they hang out, and that any one of them can also be targeted by a three letter agency or thrown into Guantánamo Bay. The government has been building and maintaining massive dossiers on everyone. They already have the ability to plant or fabricate whatever incriminating evidence they want. They already have the capability to jeopardize anyone, their personal assets, and their families and all of that could be turned against them if something goes haywire or where an outside adversary gains unauthorized access. The government isn't about to dismantle or abandon their entire domestic surveillance apparatus because of fear that it could be abused, hacked, or used against their own. Those are well known and accepted risks. AI is just one more risk they can't resist taking.
apgwoz 16 hours ago
> with their demands that the government already knows exactly where they live, where they hang out…
You’d think this, and then you hear about how long it took the FBI to locate aaronsw (rip), who lived life online, and left lots of clues to his general location, but somehow the only place the FBI ever looked was 1,000 miles away? I guess you could say that was 15 years ago, but we had domestic spy programs 15 years ago, too.
doodlebugging 18 hours ago
And so we have the other side of the coin. Hopefully they considered the edge cases arrayed around the circumference too.
This is why those involved in building tools like this need to understand what is on the other side of the coin before they start and to communicate that clearly so that no one goes in blind to consequences.
lukan 11 hours ago
Yes, but this is the same government, where the ministry of war chief Hegseth added random people to a secret chat on signal. If leadership messes up with 0 consequence, you can guess what happens at the lower ranks. In other words, they ain't so competent as you make it sound they are.
northern-lights 16 hours ago
to better understand what this may result in, see Person of Interest Season 3 Episode 20 - Death Benefit: https://personofinterest.fandom.com/wiki/Death_Benefit
ProllyInfamous 18 hours ago
Instead of Epsteins blackmailing disgustful human nature, it'll be rogue AIs sending selective blackmail, 24/7, to the spiteful among us (e.g. to motivate targeted killings, either by human or machine).
>All of this should remain a bridge too far, forever.
Hopefully Singularity will be graceful, killing-off everybody simultaneously
#PaperclipMaximizer #HimFirst
doodlebugging 18 hours ago
The list of the spiteful most likely already exists and is being used today. All these mass media have been weaponized by various bad actors.
Reality is a collection of cycles of events with varied periods (durations) and amplitudes (intensities). Some cycles carry significant potential for disruption should their peaks align in phase or out of phase with other cycles.
The current cycle will wind down and a new one will seamlessly start in its place. Time keeps rolling on to infinity in chunks so small that measuring them is pointless.
There is no singularity. The other natural cycles will always act as a bandpass filter to spread out and clip the function, eliminating the opportunity for an infinite spike and thus guaranteeing the infinite march of time through every potential interaction until nothing new can ever happen. Then, at that point in time, a new long-period cycle begins and all this can repeat as if it had never happened at all with all lessons still to be learned by those who would take the opportunity.
ProllyInfamous 17 hours ago
naasking 6 hours ago
> Instead of Epsteins blackmailing disgustful human nature
There is no evidence that Epstein blackmailed anyone. The stories around this are wildly exaggerated.
doodlebugging 2 hours ago
drcongo 9 hours ago
It's so weird how Epstein manages to pop up in basically all US discourse, even a conversation about AI use in the military.
ProllyInfamous 8 hours ago
doodlebugging 2 hours ago
herdcall 7 hours ago
Yeah, I guess OpenAI is so upset with the Department of War that they signed a deal with it! Hypocrisy all around. https://x.com/grok/status/2027769947913425390?s=20
kelvinjps10 6 hours ago
>AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. 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.
So they're saying anthropic is lying or what? Because Sam Altman is saying that DOW agrees with no mass surveillance and no autonomous drone killing. Also if not, how safety is their priority?
tuetuopay 6 hours ago
Sam Altman is lying by omission. It’s been confirmed [1] that OpenAI agreed to "lawful" use of the models. Since it’s the DoW, they can make pretty much anything lawful by invoking "national security".
[1]: https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
dataflow 20 hours ago
Why are the signing employees (at least the anonymous ones) trusting the creators of this website? What if it was set up by someone who wanted to gather a list of all the dissidents who would silently protest or leave the companies or whatever? Do you know whom you are going to hold accountable if it turns out these folks don't delete your verification data, or share it with your employer, or worse?
Also, another warning to anonymous users: it's a little bit naive to trust the "Google Forms" verification option more than the email one, given both employers probably monitor anything you do on your devices, even if it's loading the form. And, in Google's case, they could obviously see what forms you submitted on the servers, too. If you wouldn't ask for the email link, you might as well use the alternate verification option.
Anyway - I'm not claiming it's likely that the website creator is malicious, but surely it's not beyond question? The website authors don't even seem to be providing others with the verification that they are themselves asking for.
P.S. I fully realize realizing these itself might make fewer people sign the form, which may be unfortunate, but it seems worth a mention.
trinsic2 5 hours ago
Looks like the letter itself appears to be behind a piece of Javascript. I was not able to to see the letter's text with noscript turned on and had to find it elsewhere online. I don't want to discourage these companies employees from banding together to fight this abuse, but this is something to consider.
rzmmm 16 hours ago
Looks like it supports alternative proof of employment. They don't require disclosing identity as long as they are convinced you work for these companies.
dataflow 15 hours ago
And you propose that how exactly? Every method they mention has identity attached to it in some way. They specifically want to be able to deduplicate submissions too, so I don't see what non-identifying options you're imagining they might accept either.
abustamam 19 hours ago
I think it's an important call-out though. Can never be too safe in this landscape.
octoberfranklin 15 hours ago
let a thousand flowers bloom
rabbitlord 21 hours ago
I am not a fan of Anthropic guys, but this time I stand with it. We all should.
danny_codes 20 hours ago
It is a rough precedent that the government can force private citizens to build weapons for them.
IG_Semmelweiss 18 hours ago
The government has always had monopoly over violence.
Not only in the US, but everywhere else there is a government.
Arthropic is trying to make that a corporate prerogative, which is why its causing such a stir.
Tepix 15 hours ago
cmrdporcupine 9 hours ago
Anthropic's public statement declared their intent -- and in fact desire -- to allow their use of technology against me, as I'm not a US citizen.
Why should I stand with them? They only believe US citizens have democratic rights.
I'm sure Anthropic's hands are tied in so many ways, but that's no concern of mine.
I'll get by with GLM-5 and running Qwen locally.
lightyrs 19 hours ago
» Have there been any mistakes in signature verification for this letter?
» We are aware of two mistakes in our efforts to verify the signatures in the form so far. One person who was not an employee of OpenAI or Google found a bug in our verification system and signed falsely under the name "You guys are letting China Win". This was noticed and fixed in under 10 minutes, and the verification system was improved to prevent mistakes like this from happening again. We also had two people submit twice in a way that our automatic de-duplication didn't catch. We do periodic checks for this. Because of anonymity considerations, all signatures are manually reviewed by one fallible human. We do our best to make sure we catch and correct any mistakes, but we are not perfect and will probably make mistakes. We will log those mistakes here as we find them.
xphos 9 hours ago
This should be flagged political like literally everything else that has been flagged ironic how when your on the menu you dont follow the same protocols applied everyone else too.
I only say this because this is not new behavior for the administration its been reported here on HN and in less biased and political ways but ends up suppressed just confused what changed?
Edit just to be clear this shouldn't be flagged and posts they deal with rights in the past shouldn't have been flagged because rights should be the preeminent concern of anyone in tech
codepoet80 21 hours ago
Nicely done. Hold this line — there’s got to be one somewhere.
david_shaw 20 hours ago
I'd prefer to see board (or executive) level signatories over lay employees -- the people who can enforce enterprise policy rather than just voice their opinions -- but this is encouraging to see nonetheless.
I can't help but notice that Grok/X is not part of this initiative, though. I realize that frontier models are really coming from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, but it feels like someone is going to give in to these demands.
It's incredible how quickly we've devolved into full-blown sci-fi dystopia.
thimabi 19 hours ago
> I'd prefer to see board (or executive) level signatories over lay employees -- the people who can enforce enterprise policy rather than just voice their opinions
Although it would be nice to have some high-level signees there, I think we shouldn’t minimize the role of lay employees in this matter. Without having someone knowledgeable enough to build and operate them, AI models are worthless to the C-suite.
autoexec 19 hours ago
> Without having someone knowledgeable enough to build and operate them, AI models are worthless to the C-suite.
The obvious solution is to use AI to build and operate them. If AI is as intelligent as the hype claims it shouldn't be an issue. It's not as if the goal wasn't to get rid of workers anyway. Why not start now?
ajam1507 10 hours ago
alfiedotwtf 19 hours ago
I just hope that the non-executive co-signers aren’t all fired once Hedseth becomes Acting CEO of Google or OpenAI eventually when this administration commandeers both company in the name of National Security
8note 18 hours ago
dsign 14 hours ago
> It's incredible how quickly we've devolved into full-blown sci-fi dystopia.
It's pretty bad, but at least the AI industry is still run by humans. Wait a decade or two, when the AI lobby is run by AIs, and the repressive apparatus of the day uses autonomous weapons to do what ICE and friends do today but perhaps focused on "alignment" of the ... humans. You know, if they sufficiently worship AIs in the way they express themselves. Forget about Anthropic and OpenAI; we will look back and rue the day mathematics was invented.
daxfohl 19 hours ago
Or just reincorporate in Finland or something. If the US is going to be this hostile to business, time to gtfo.
snickerbockers 17 hours ago
Or they can just not sign contracts with the DoD. They landed themselves in this situation by making a deal with the devil. At any rate, unless Finland is about to announce a massive surge in funding for their military this doesn't solve Anthropic's desire to suckle sweet taxpayer money off the military industrial complex's teat while simultaneously pretending to have principles.
mieses 16 hours ago
"hostile to business".. Employees of a business playing moral philosophers, priests or policy influencers miss the entire point of business.
The employees themselves can definitely gtfo to Finland for the reason that they have an unrealistic perception of business and the world. The business itself has no obligation to pay attention to magical thinking.
skeledrew 19 hours ago
> Grok/X
Head(s) will of course agree with the administration. And employees will likely be making themselves a target if they sign this letter. All anonymous from said company is not a good look at all.
Speculation of course; let's see what really happens.
jdadj 19 hours ago
I don’t have any particular insights, but I’m curious to learn the antitrust implications of how the execs can/cannot coordinate.
imiric 15 hours ago
> It's incredible how quickly we've devolved into full-blown sci-fi dystopia.
How so? The steps towards where we are now have been gradual over the last 2 decades, at least. This recent step has opened the door for those in power to grab onto even more power and wealth, and they're naturally seizing it. All of this was comically predictable. Oh, and BTW, the people on this very website have brought us here. :)
You know what will happen next? Absolutely nothing. A vocal minority will make a ruckus that will be ignored, partly because nobody will hear it due to our corrupted media channels, and partly because the vast majority doesn't care and are too amused by their shiny toys and way of life.
This dystopia is only different from fictional ones in that those in power have managed to convince the majority of people that they're not living in a dystopia. It's kind of a genius move.
avaer 20 hours ago
Honestly though, would it help if those in charge voiced their honest opinions?
The current political climate is this is the kind of thing that will get you "investigated" and charged with crimes.
And the government has already threatened that it will commandeer these companies whether they like it or not.
If someone in charge wants to make a difference, there might be more effective things to do than to speak out in this instance.
dougb5 19 hours ago
Yes, it would help so much. Especially if a lot of people with money and power voiced their honest opinions at the same time.
jalapenos 17 hours ago
I don't think people get to those positions by having firm principles
dfp33 20 hours ago
Is it really incredible?
Only if you're naive. I guess most here are.
Governments are paranoid, particularly about losing control and influence over its subjects. This is expected behaviour.
wslack 20 hours ago
By that logic we should expect all governments to regress to totalitarianism, which hasn’t happened, and isn’t what’s happening here.
The question isn’t if some would attempt these behaviors, but rather if we and our democratic structures empower those people or fail to constrain them.
myko 20 hours ago
This is a very different vibe in the US than it has been in living memory.
puchatek 16 hours ago
Democratic governments care about this to a degree but only autocratic ones get paranoid.
busko 19 hours ago
I wouldn't call senior AI researchers / scientists laypersons. In fact in this sense politicians are laypersons.
There are already several comments here showing xAIs involvement. Please save clutter and read before posting.
edoceo 19 hours ago
Re: Reading, I don't see any xAI names on the list (currently 643) and only Google and OpenAI are selectable company options. And this page on HN is only calling out xAI.
busko 19 hours ago
txrx0000 21 hours ago
This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force.
It's time to open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run 100% transparent labs so that there's nothing to take from you. Level the playing field for good and bad actors alike, otherwise the bad actors will get their hands on it while everyone else is left behind. Start a movement to make fully transparent AI labs the worldwide norm, and any org that doesn't cooperate is immediately boycotted.
Stop comparing AI capabilities to nuclear weapons. A nuke cannot protect against or reverse the damage of another nuke. AI capabilities are not like nukes. General intelligence should not be in the hands of a few. Give it to everyone and the good will prevail.
Build a world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, where each AI is aligned with an individual human, not a corporation or government (which are machiavellian out of necessity). This is humanity's best chance at survival.
magicalist 21 hours ago
> This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities.
What is why?
You never actually say that part, unless it's "It will eventually be taken from you by force" which doesn't seem applicable to this situation or this site?
txrx0000 20 hours ago
I'm referring to the current situation. How is it not applicable? I think the government wants to eventually nationalize these companies and we have to stop them.
noisy_boy 18 hours ago
bottlepalm 21 hours ago
What use are weights without the hardware to run them? That's the gate. Local AI right now is a toy in comparison.
Nukes are actually a great example of something also gated by resources. Just having the knowledge/plans isn't good enough.
txrx0000 19 hours ago
Scaling has hit a wall and will not get us to AGI. Open-source models are only a couple of months behind closed models, and the same level of capability will require smaller and smaller models in the future. This is where open research can help: make the models smaller ASAP. I think it's likely that we'll be able to get something human-level to run on a single 16GB GPU before the end of the decade.
Tade0 2 hours ago
tbrownaw 19 hours ago
drdaeman 18 hours ago
fooker 20 hours ago
> hardware to run them
Costs a few hundred thousand per server, it's a huge expense if you want it at your home but a rounding error for most organizations.
bottlepalm 20 hours ago
reactordev 20 hours ago
I run local models on Mac studios and they are more than capable. Don’t spread fud.
bottlepalm 20 hours ago
msuniverse2026 21 hours ago
I'd prefer something akin to the Biological Weapons Treaty which prohibits development, production and transfer. If you think it isn't possible you have to tell me why the bioweapons convention was successful and why it wouldn't be in the case of AI.
tgma 21 hours ago
> bioweapons convention was successful
Was it successful? The jury is still out.
xpe 20 hours ago
Muromec 20 hours ago
Because bioweapons suck, this is why. On the other hand AI sucks too, but it has at least some use
jrumbut 20 hours ago
smegger001 20 hours ago
because bio-weapons labs take more to run than a workstation pc under your desk with a good graphics card. both in equipment material and training. Its hard to outlaw use of linear algebra and matrix multiplications.
aaronblohowiak 20 hours ago
txrx0000 21 hours ago
Don't compare general intelligence to bioweapons. A bioweapon cannot defend against or reverse the effects of another bioweapon.
drdeca 21 hours ago
medi8r 21 hours ago
Open Source here is not enough as hardware ownership matters. In an open source world, you and I cannot run the 10 trillion param model, but the data center controllers can.
txrx0000 21 hours ago
I agree. We will need hardware ownership as well eventually. But the earlier you open-source, the more you slow down the centralization because people will be more likely to buy hardware to run stuff at home and that gives hardware companies an opening to do the right thing.
layer8 20 hours ago
Sure, but we could have Hetzners and OVHs who just provide the compute for whatever model we want to run.
medi8r 19 hours ago
jefftk 20 hours ago
A "world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, where each AI is aligned with an individual human" would be a world in which people could easily create humanity-ending bioweapons. I would love to live in a less vulnerable world, and am working full time to bring about such a world, but in the meantime what you describe would likely be a disaster.
m4rtink 18 hours ago
I think it is much more likely they will be (and are) generating protorealistic images of ther favourite person (real or fictional) with cat ears. Never underestimate what adding cat ears does.
OK, maybe someone will build a bioweapon that does that for real. :P
txrx0000 20 hours ago
There are plenty of physical and legal barriers to creating a bioweapon and that's not going to change if everyone becomes smarter with AI. And even if we really somehow end up in a world where everyone has a lab at home and people can easily create viruses, they can also easily create vaccines and anti-virals. The advancements in medicine will outpace bioweapons by a lot because most people are afraid of bioweapons.
Intelligence itself is not dangerous unless only a few orgs control it and it's aligned to those orgs' values rather than human values. The safety narrative is just "intelligence for me, but not for thee" in disguise.
jefftk 20 hours ago
oceanplexian 20 hours ago
I’m tired of these bizarre hypothetical gotcha arguments. If AI can create bioweapons, it can equally create vaccines and antidotes to them.
We live in a free society. AI should be democratized like any other technology.
jefftk 20 hours ago
dcre 20 hours ago
claudiojulio 20 hours ago
If it's taken by force, it will stagnate. It makes no sense at all.
avaer 20 hours ago
The logic used in the treats is that it's a national security risk to not use Claude, but it's also a national security risk to use Claude.
We shouldn't expect these people to consider how the logic breaks down one step ahead when it never made sense in the first place.
quotemstr 15 hours ago
I am certain that there exist people who are 1) capable of advancing the state of the art in AI, and 2) free of the hubris that lets them believe that their making AI somehow gives them a veto over the fates of nations.
wahnfrieden 20 hours ago
Is TikTok stagnating in the US?
pluc 21 hours ago
When have US corporations (or simply "the US" really) ever done the right thing for humanity?
4bpp 20 hours ago
"What have the Romans ever done for us?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)
ted_dunning 19 hours ago
Donating the first polio vaccine to humanity.
Funding the majority of HIV prevention in Africa.
The list is long, but you knew that.
no_wizard 20 hours ago
This letter and all of this is meaningless.
If they actually wanted to do something they wouldn’t have sat back and funded Republican political campaigns because they were pissed about the head of the ftc under Biden.
But they didn’t. They gave millions to this guy and now they’re feigning ignorance or change ir wherever this is.
It’s meaningless. Utterly meaningless.
Get what you pay for, I suppose.
inkysigma 20 hours ago
What are you talking about? Google employees and the corporation itself in particular overwhelmingly donated to the Harris campaign.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/recipients?id=...
The corporation gave millions _after_ Trump had already won. If your criticism is that, then that does not apply to the people signing.
SpicyLemonZest 20 hours ago
We shouldn't be scammed by people who intend to get back on the Trump train once they've gotten what they want. But if someone's willing to openly oppose the Trump regime, even out of self-interest, I'm happy to let them feign as much ignorance as they'd like. If his power isn't broken the details of who resisted him when won't matter.
5o1ecist 20 hours ago
They control the compute.
xpe 21 hours ago
> This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. They will eventually be taken from you by force.
Some form of US AI lab nationalization is possible, but it hasn't happened yet. We'll see. Nationalization can take different forms, not to mention various arrangements well short of it.
I interpret the comment above as a normative claim (what should happen). It implies the nationalization threat forces the decision by the AI labs. No. I will grant it influences, in the sense that AI labs have to account for it.
conductr 18 hours ago
You can’t be silly enough to build a product that enables things like mass surveillance to proliferate and then try to take a stance of “please don’t use it like that”. You invented a genie and let him out of the bottle.
apublicfrog 15 hours ago
They can actually. Hence why they had it in their AUP.
GaryBluto 14 hours ago
If the DoW/DoD wants Anthropic, they'll get Anthropic, whether we know about it publicly or not. It's not unlikely that they're already working together and just putting on a show for the public.
I'd even go as far to say that if this is indeed a publicity campaign it is the most successful one I've seen in years. Many detractors of the existence of LLMs are suddenly leaping to Anthropic's defence.
josfredo 14 hours ago
This is the only careful comment. Everything else here is trying to mentally push away the inevitable. You can argue if it is noble to perform resistance in the face of what is pretty much fate, but I would not put any cent on that.
_aavaa_ 20 hours ago
Yes, take disparate sets of employees and like, oh idk unionize while you still have power.
culi 19 hours ago
Actions like these often lead to unions. Look into the history of how the Kickstarter union came to be.
It often starts as collective action in response to a blatant disregard for the values of the workers
fragkakis 11 hours ago
I clearly see the point against using AI for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. But for the latter, I don't see a choice. If other countries are willing to allow fully autonomous weapons using their own AI, it's no longer a matter of choice, you have to do it too.
trinsic2 4 hours ago
> it's no longer a matter of choice, you have to do it too
You know, there are plenty of examples where people in positions of power choose different paths of escalation. I doesn't always need to be liner tit for tat. Some times you need to step back and look at the larger picture and decide of the escalation is worth the risk for all of humanity.
There is a video about game theory [0] that describes this problem very clearly. You have better outcomes when you make decisions outside the direct course of escalation.
Please don't talk in absolutes about these things, you have an opinion. I accept that, but its not as black and white as you think
zarzavat 11 hours ago
The same could be said of mass producing chemical and biological weapons.
fragkakis 11 hours ago
For what it is worth, those have been banned universally AFAIK
threethirtytwo 3 hours ago
It's like watching Darth Vader Senior fight Darth Vader Junior and luke skywalker is nowhere in sight.
mitch-flindell 20 hours ago
The primary purpose of these products is mass surveillance why else would they be allowed to be built ?
rayiner 18 hours ago
This seems squarely within the purpose of the Defense Production Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
"Title I authorizes the President to identify specific goods as 'critical and strategic' and to require private businesses to accept and prioritize contracts for these materials."
If you invented a new kind of power source, and the government determined that it could be used to efficiently kill enemies, the government could force you to provide the product to them under the DPA. Why should AI companies get an exemption to that?
yed 18 hours ago
Well, for one, they haven’t invoked the Defense Production Act.
rayiner 18 hours ago
The very first point on the website is: “The Department of War is threatening to … Invoke the Defense Production Act.”
trinsic2 4 hours ago
yed 16 hours ago
groundzeros2015 8 hours ago
For all the authoritarian regime talk. Here we have a list of many non-citizens willing to argue with the secretary of war of a country they are a temporary resident of, with no concern of repercussion.
chairhairair 7 hours ago
“no concern of repercussion”
Your worldview is outdated. There are obviously risks to signing this. Get your head out of the sand.
Dansvidania 9 hours ago
I think the time when engineers could steer the heading of the companies they work for is long gone, sadly.
It’s too little too late. Don’t be evil is not a value anyone is even pretending to uphold.
I’d rather someone of these very smart people start to develop countermeasures.
sourcegrift 16 hours ago
Cute, I will also sign this since there are only upsides of Good optics and no downsides Let me know when any of them resigns after the companies do inevitably take the million dollar contracts.
celltalk 15 hours ago
Wouldn’t it be ironic if US used open source Chinese models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight… democracy at its best.
driverdan 20 hours ago
This is a nice gesture but completely meaningless. There is absolutely no commitment in this. "We hope our leaders.." has no conditions, no effects.
If you're an employee and actually believe in this you need to commit to something, like resigning.
driverdan 8 hours ago
Now that Sam has already ignore this, it's time for OpenAI employees who signed to actually do something https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189650
culi 20 hours ago
it's the first step towards actually organizing. Reminds me of how the Kickstarter union came to be
Any collective action should be encouraged
abhijitr 20 hours ago
The book "On Tyranny: 20 lessons from the 20th century" by the historian Timothy Snyder is an excellent read for these times. The very first lesson is "Do not obey in advance". It's about how authoritarian power often doesn't need to force compliance, people simply bend the knee in anticipation of being forced. This simply emboldens the authoritarians to go further.
I've been disappointed to see many businesses and institutions obeying in advance recently. I hope this moment wakes up the tech community and beyond.
trinsic2 4 hours ago
This came up in my noncooperation training recently[0]. Thank you for posting this.
ozozozd 12 hours ago
For companies / billionaires obeying in advance means they are buying their subscription to a period of favors like better contracts, lesser scrutiny over mergers, lighter enforcement of all laws.
I’d like to think that they are scared/obeying, but they’re likely just joining an organization.
kapluni 7 hours ago
Sadly didn’t age well - OpenAI enthusiastically caved
trickstra 3 hours ago
It's fun seeing both of these posts on the main page of hackernews at the same time.
hrtk 12 hours ago
More like “you have been divided” — OpenAI
hedayet 17 hours ago
Just one thing - unless you're at a principal level or higher, don't quit as long as your conscience can take it. You'll be replaced by 10 other people overnight.
PostOnce 21 hours ago
My take is that none of the AI companies really care (companies can't care), they just realize that if they go down that road, public opinion will be so vehemently against AI in all forms that it will be regulated out of viability by the electorate.
Also, if AI exists, AI will be used for war. The AI company employees are kidding themselves if they think otherwise, and yet they are still building it (as opposed to resigning and working on something else), because in the end, money is the only true God in this world.
ricksunny a minute ago
OpenAI employee https://x.com/wesamo__/status/2027772549895995417 Wesam has done this.
zugi 20 hours ago
Anthropic does not object to its use for war. In fact Anthropic explicitly allows its semi-autonomous use in war, e.g. for identifying targets. They just won't permit its use for full autonomous war, yet, because they don't believe it's safe enough.
PostOnce 20 hours ago
Since when has war been waged according to the whim of a corporation?
The tools will be used however the government wants them to be used. The government makes the laws and wages the wars, and the corporation will follow the law whether it wants to or not.
So either you are willing to work on a tool that is not under your control, or you are not.
zugi 40 minutes ago
nxm 20 hours ago
I'm sure China doesn't care it's not safe... and there's the issue
redbell 5 hours ago
> They're trying to divide each company with fear that the other will give in. That strategy only works if none of us know where the others stand.
Prisoner's Dilemma in Action!
krystofee 13 hours ago
How come this is signed by OpenAI engineers while OpenAI participates in it with DoW? https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175
Quarrel 18 hours ago
I know it is a serious topic, but before I clicked on it, I assumed this was going to be about Prime numbers...
Maybe it can get reused after this stuff is over.
tomcam 18 hours ago
Please take this question at face value. I tend to be slightly pro defense department in this context, but it is not a strongly held belief.
What I have known is that since its very inception, Google has been doing massive amounts of business with the war department. What makes this particular contract different? I really am trying to understand why these sentiments now.
anigbrowl 17 hours ago
It's a clear enough moral issue that whichever side of it you end up on is likely to have life-shaping consequences 5 or 10 years down the line. It's predictable that there will be domestic or international conflict with a high cost in lives and political coherence over that timescale, and being someone who 'was in AI' at a government scale vendor is qualitatively different from being a database admin o font designer or UX specialist.
Substantively, individual employees of these firms may have little or no actual impact on this. But AI is ubiquitous enough and disruptive enough that being professionally connected with it at a time of great geopolitical instability has the potential to be a very very bad look later.
tomcam 10 hours ago
But hasn’t that always been true at Google? They’ve been military contractors for decades.
anigbrowl 3 hours ago
andytratt 7 hours ago
HN should apply their flagging of posts consistently. either flag the politics or not at all.
Thorrez 7 hours ago
>If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Would this "open letter" be covered on TV news?
krapp 6 hours ago
The concept of "tv news" itself is pretty anachronistic, and the premise that nothing that would be covered on "tv news" should be of any interest to "good hackers" is a bit elitist. That guideline, like the rest of this forum, was written in the early 2000s, for what one could argue was an entirely different world than now, with an entirely different relationship between culture and media, and the assumptions it makes about culture and media may no longer apply, if they ever did.
That said, here are some American examples - it is being covered by CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-full...
And a local affiliate: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/nation-world/trump-order-a...
And ABC: https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/anthropic-refuses-bend-pent...
And a local affiliate: https://abc7news.com/post/anthropic-refuses-bend-pentagon-ai...
NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-bans-anthropic-...
Fox: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tech-company-refuses-pentag...
Searching "anthropic letter tv news coverage" in Google, the News tab has tons of other mainstream news sources, worldwide, covering this story.
So yes. This and many "technical" stories that appear on HN would be covered by "tv news."
nailer 6 hours ago
Yes. Dang mentioned explicitly that he’s been removing the flags from certain political posts. The result is the site has become filled with left wing activism.
djgrant 4 hours ago
The regulatory environment in the US is insane
MattDaEskimo 21 hours ago
This was a brave, heartwarming read. Thank you to the teams
gunnihinn 12 hours ago
The bravery of the people signing this anonymously is inspiring.
ekjhgkejhgk 9 hours ago
What's uninspiring is your ignorance of game theory.
Anyone who puts their name on that list might potentially be a target. On the flip side, there is no signaling value in putting your name on the list anonymously. Therefore anonymous names on the list believe in it (tho some people might make the calculation that they can't handle being a target but they might still resist and obstruct in other ways.)
So: It's inspiring that a lot of people are ready to obstruct or delay even if they're not ready to deal with personal consequences.
gradstudent 9 hours ago
> Anyone who puts their name on that list might potentially be a target.
My first inclination is to read letters like this as a threat from employees to the employer. It says hey boss-men, this shite is not on. Signing anonymously undermines that message. I tend to read those signatures as as, I don't like this but it's not worth my job. I have no faith in the efficacy or even existence of "obstruct or delay" tactics from folks like that.
ekjhgkejhgk 9 hours ago
mythz 20 hours ago
These 2 Exceptions shouldn't have to be disputed.
At this point I'd go far to say I wouldn't trust any company with my AI history that caves to DoD demands for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons.
Your AI will know more about you than any other company, not going to be trusting that to anyone who trades ethics for profits.
vander_elst 11 hours ago
What's crazy here is that a government I'd requiring de-regulation while companies are trying to keep stricter rules. What a time.
bcooke 21 hours ago
I'd love to see this extended to any American regardless of past/present employment with Google or OpenAI
general_reveal 21 hours ago
Would you like to see this extended globally? Could such a spirit exist multinationally? It’s asking a lot, because you’d be asking for a lot of courage from places like China, India, Russia, Middle East … anywhere that’s not Europe basically.
bcooke 20 hours ago
Well yes, but context matters here and this is the US government's decision to take with a US-based company.
While I understand why it matters for folks affiliated with prominent AI companies in particular to sign this, the more the American people stand together, the more pressure I think that puts on our government to act responsibly.
Idealistic and naive? Probably. But sometimes grassroots efforts do spark change, and it's high time the people of the USA start living up to the first word in our country's name.
Anyways, to answer your question directly: I welcome all the fine people of the world everywhere to join in what this open letter stands for.
Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear to many of us Americans that the current administration doesn't care what we think, never mind what people outside our country do. So I'll just start with the group that this department (in theory) is supposed to represent.
motbus3 15 hours ago
The important thing to know is that no one wants a conflict. Don't be used for that. Don't accept that.
We protect our families when we are home. That's all everybody wants.
khannn 12 hours ago
Shades of "He Will Not Divide Us"
snickerbockers 20 hours ago
>We are the employees of Google and OpenAI, two of the top AI companies in the world.
Does this mean you dipshits are going to stop your own domestic surveillance programs? You sold your souls to the devil decades ago, don't pretend like you have principles now.
fschuett 15 hours ago
Ted Kaczynski was right about technology
poisonborz 11 hours ago
So these are the employees that ignore the hundreds of other atrocities their companies do against other countries, small firms, individuals, come out flags waving for some cherry-picked issues, and next day go back to their well paid jobs, vested stocks and office perks and lunch chefs to passively support these agendas further, even if they have the best career mobility across almost all industries.
I mean it's neat, but naive at best.
zahlman 16 hours ago
Is there a particular reason why the actual letter content requires JavaScript to load while everything else is readable?
pluc 10 hours ago
Hey did someone show this to Sam? I don't think he knows.
succo 10 hours ago
This is game theory 100%, who's gonna be the bad guy?
siliconc0w 19 hours ago
We need key AI researchers at these companies to speak out - execs will not care otherwise. If Jeff Dean made this a red line, it might matter.
AdieuToLogic 19 hours ago
> We need key AI researchers at these companies to speak out ...
See this[0] article from Business Insider dated 2026-02-16 titled:
The art of the squeal
What we can learn from the flood of AI resignation letters
And containing: This past week brought several additions to the annals of
"Why I quit this incredibly valuable company working on
bleeding-edge tech" letters, including from researchers at
xAI and an op-ed in The New York Times from a departing
OpenAI researcher. Perhaps the most unusual was by Mrinank
Sharma, who was put in charge of Anthropic's Safeguards
Research Team a year ago, and who announced his departure
from what is often considered the more safety-minded of the
leading AI startups.
0 - https://www.businessinsider.com/resignation-letters-quit-ope...guywithahat 3 hours ago
> Label the company a "supply chain risk"
Are they not a huge supply chain risk? Anthropic, being second chicken to OpenAI for a long time, decided to integrate tightly with the DoW. Now that their consumer products are doing better they're making decisions for the DoW as a supplier. This isn't about whether I agree with the DoW or not, it's just that behavior obviously would never fly with any customer.
The only real surprise is I haven't heard of the DoW considering Grok, which is not only a frontier model but has an existing gov cloud platform.
himata4113 21 hours ago
Does this mean there is a non zero chance we will get some kind of grok+chinese model mix that's used across the entire US military? Ironic isn't it.
focusgroup0 20 hours ago
> domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight
spoiler alert: this is already happening
do labs in China have a choice in the matter?
gcanyon 21 hours ago
No problem! The DoD^HW will just use DeepSeek!
(I wish this were a joke)
dryarzeg 21 hours ago
They've already been using Signal - which is "commercial" app, meaning it's not meant to be used like that - for top-secret (or at least highly sensitive) military communications during the military strikes on Yemen. If that was fake, I apologise, I was deceived. I wouldn't be surprised if things turned out that way again, to be honest. That's something to be expected, actually (IMO).
verdverm 20 hours ago
Aren't they using the Israeli version of Signal which backs up messages because the law requires it?
Pretty sure I remember that from the fumble
JshWright 21 hours ago
The legal name of the department is still the Department of Defense. The "Department of War" is a preferred name by the administration.
k12sosse 20 hours ago
Identity affirming care now includes avoiding the DODs deadname. What a world.
dang 19 hours ago
dalemhurley 21 hours ago
They are after the models without post training guardrails.
latencyhawk 17 hours ago
Well, I think I will get the 200 sub.
torton 5 hours ago
Apparently, OpenAI already folded.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/openai-pentagon-deal-ai-...
A unified front from tech companies could have stood a chance, but there's too much money to be made and the imbalance of power is too great without departing the area of influence of the US government entirely (and then go where? China, UK, Australia, etc. are equally not shy of coercing commercial capabilities in pursuit of government goals, including military goals).
bottlepalm 20 hours ago
We all knew AI had the potential to be extremely powerful, and we all perused it anyways. What did we think would happen? The government/military always takes control of the most powerful/dangerous systems. If you work for a defense contractor or under ITAR then you already know this.
The right way to deal with this is political - corporate campaign contributions and lobbying. You're not going to be able to fight the military if they think they need something for national security.
spuz 21 hours ago
They should be collecting signatures from employees at xAI. I think they're probably most likely to fill the space left by Anthropic.
dalemhurley 21 hours ago
XAI has already announced they are 100% in
spuz 21 hours ago
All the more reason to collect their employees' signatures.
aeon_ai 21 hours ago
This kind of screams desperation, but I guess that's what happens when you're niche AI.
verdverm 20 hours ago
nailer 6 hours ago
ocdtrekkie 21 hours ago
Everyone knows anyone who signs this from xAI will be a former employee by tomorrow.
dalemhurley 21 hours ago
My guess is their HR is already monitoring it with instant termination processes in place.
spuz 21 hours ago
ocdtrekkie 21 hours ago
xvector 21 hours ago
There is a specific kind of person that joins xAI over the other companies and it is definitely not a moral one.
clouedoc 7 hours ago
It's hard to deny an offer to become a millionaire in the next 3 years if you just hang tight at xAI, especially if you don't have any offers from competing AI labs. Also, LLMs are converging into an easy-to-replicate commodity. It doesn't matter much who wastes their money on you to build them.
xvector 5 hours ago
jfengel a day ago
Good luck with that. I just don't see either Google or OpenAI listening to their employees on this. They might have their own reasons for not wanting to help build Skynet, but if they don't, I'm sure those employees can readily be replaced with somebody more compliant.
trinsic2 20 hours ago
I missing the actual letter. I think that part of the content is hidden behind some javascript. Can someone post it.
tonymet 4 hours ago
Allowing anonymous signatories only weakens the petition. Two important people signing a petition is worth more than 10000 anons.
I scrolled through a few pages and 40-60% are anonymous. Even a handful weakens the petition.
I wish more people would participate in civics . Attend your city council or local political party meeting. See what it takes to actually collect signatures, run a campaign.
Online slactivism actually just worsens the cause, because potential energy is vented on futile online “petitions” rather than taking real action.
bambax 13 hours ago
> We hope our leaders will put aside their differences and stand together to continue to refuse the Department of War's current demands...
WTF does that even mean, we "hope"???!? You know they won't, what's the point of hoping? Why not quit if you have the courage, or not quit -- and shut up?
foota 14 hours ago
Well that aged poorly.
mortsnort 19 hours ago
Kneecapping the country's best AI lab seems like a bad way to win at the cyber.
yayr 2 days ago
It's good that there are still empathic humans in the decision and build chain when it comes to AI systems...
wosined a day ago
[flagged]
dang 20 hours ago
Personal attacks aren't allowed here.
Perhaps you don't owe AI tycoons whose names start with A better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
wosined 3 hours ago
mrcwinn 20 hours ago
dvfjsdhgfv 9 hours ago
The counterargument by the other side will always be, if we don't do it it doesn't matter because the Chinese will do it anyway - and then, common people will be at a disadvantage.
anonnon 18 hours ago
> Signed,
The people who:
> steal any bit of code you put on the internet regardless of the license you use or its terms, then use it to train their models, then turn around and try to sell it to you
> made it so you can't afford new, more powerful computers or smartphones anymore, or perhaps even just replacements for the ones you already have, thanks to massive GPU, DRAM, SSD, and now even HDD shortages
> flood the internet with artificial, superficial content
> aggressively DDoS your website
Real pillars of society.
siva7 13 hours ago
At least they're making it easy for HR.
love2read 20 hours ago
How is posting on this website with your full name not career suicide?
ceroxylon 20 hours ago
That's what taking a stand looks like... if any of these employees lose their job, they are welcome to come crash at my place for as long as they would like; they will have a roof over their head and I will cook them 3 meals a day.
Sivart13 20 hours ago
Not all tech employers are total weenies who would refuse to hire someone for taking this stance.
Most are, but not all.
ipaddr 18 hours ago
And people were wondering how OpenAI will find profitability.
tgv 15 hours ago
So now they suddenly develop a conscience? Killing education, and by implication actively dumbing the future world, putting large parts of the labor market at risk, porn fakes, and destroying artistic creation, are acceptable in the name of profit, apparently.
anigbrowl 18 hours ago
We hope our leaders will put aside their differences and stand together to continue to refuse the Department of War's current demands for permission to use our models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight.
[90 minutes later]
Ah! Well, nevertheless
OK, this is a cheap shot on my part. But still: we hope? What kind of milquetoast martyrdom is this? Nobody gives a shit about tech workers as living, breathing, human moral agents. You (a putative moral actor signed onto this worthy undertaking) might be a person of deep feeling and high principle, and I sincerely admire you for that. But to the world at large, you're an effete button pusher who gets paid mid-six figures to automate society in accordance with billionaires' preferences and your expressions of social piety are about as meaningful as changing the flowers in the window box high up on the side of an ivory tower. The fact that ~80% of the signatories are anonymous only reinforces this perception.
If you want this to be more than a futile gesture followed by structural regret while you actively or passively contribute to whatever technologically-accelerated Bad Things come to pass in the near and medium term, a large proportion of you (> 500/648 current signatories) need to follow through and resign over the weekend. Doing so likely won't have that much direct impact, but it will slow things down a little (for the corporate and governmental bad actors who will find deployment of the new tech a little bit harder) and accelerate opposition a little (market price adjustments of elevated risk, increased debate and public rejection of the militaristic use of AI).
Hope, like other noble feelings, doesn't change anything. Actions, however poorly coordinated and incoherent, change things a little. If your principles are to have meaning, act on them during the short window of attention you have available.
monkaiju 6 hours ago
I'm regularly surprised how otherwise intelligent people with "good intentions" keep going to work at these places in the first place, then get all "surprised pikachu" when it turns out their work might go towards nefarious ends. These technologies are inherently anti-creativity and researchers have been sounding the alarms about their efficacy for mass surveillance for a long time. Even this petition only seems concerned with "domestic mass surveillance", as if the tools used by an empire abroad dont inevitably get turned inwards.
At some point its hard not to think they just cant avoid the money. At least for the SWEs these are folks who could work at much less "evil" businesses and still easily clear $150k or $200k but they just cant help themselves. This is a company that steals its training data and whose primary product is at best an anti working-class cudgel that management can use to intimidate workers and threaten them with replacement and at worse is a mass-surveillance/killing tool.
nailer 6 hours ago
All that will happen as a result of US companies not willing to work on weapons is that the US will be made more vulnerable to adversaries, particularly the CCP who don’t care about these things.
dmix 20 hours ago
Not using Claude only weakens the state. Just don’t oblige
ozgung 12 hours ago
Am I the only one who is really freaking out?
They deploy BOTS to KILL PEOPLE!
This is the only big news here.
This is the only time in this timeline where we must say "you shall not pass". The ultimate red line. And there is no going back. It's just escalation in an arms race from now on. Nothing good can come out of this.
And you are talking about details, if some guys mentioned the word "domestic" in their tweet etc.
BOTS will autonomously KILL PEOPLE!
gurumeditations 6 hours ago
The “Department of War” DOES NOT EXIST.
qup 21 hours ago
Hegseth shared a Trump tweet a few hours ago saying they're going to quit doing business with Anthropic.
ripped_britches 20 hours ago
No surprise to have not heard anything from xAI
mftb 21 hours ago
Stand your ground.
verdverm 21 hours ago
Don't tread on me
krapp 20 hours ago
Ironically the flag flown mostly by the people who voted for this tyranny.
They should reprint it to say "Step on me Daddy."
verdverm 20 hours ago
goku12 13 hours ago
> permission to use our models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight.
This sounds way worse than dystopian, Orwellian or big-brotherly, in a world where you can't even get a human to review the 'autonomously placed lock' on your email or social media account. The Terminator saga is perhaps a good fit. But I have a feeling that they won't stop even at that.
bufio 3 hours ago
Hacker news?
mellosouls 13 hours ago
"Domestic".
Very disappointing the letter signatories have chosen to reinforce the US-centric idea that using the models to spy on other democracies is fine and dandy.
Altman and senior others names notable by their absence; not unexpected given the quickly following apparent submission to DoW, which leaves the signatories here (while well-intentioned) in exposed ethical positions now.
pluc 10 hours ago
They have now deleted/hid all signatures because their corpodaddy went the other way.
This is so great.
theahura 18 hours ago
OpenAI is nothing without its people
shevy-java 11 hours ago
"We are the employees of Google and OpenAI, two of the top AI companies in the world."
Well, good luck to them, but the state can control from top-down via laws, so they WILL eventually abuse people and violate their rights by proxy-force. I would not trust any of them with my data.
nailer 8 hours ago
From the HN Guidelines:
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
drcongo 9 hours ago
If I was Anthropic, I'd be saving this as a list of potential hires who share the company's values and shortlisting some to call up on Monday morning.
surume 9 hours ago
You must follow the law in your home country. Your refusal to do so constitutes Treason. Obey the law.
renewiltord 20 hours ago
Well, it looks like OpenAI will be working with the Pentagon: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/27/pentagon-openai-safety-red-...
My personal guess is that Sam Altman said he'd let policy violations go without a complaint and Dario Amodei said he wouldn't.
Esophagus4 19 hours ago
Shame. Although I guess Altman has now fully given up the “for the good of humanity” schtick.
kittikitti 10 hours ago
I respect this and everyone who signed it. Not that I was ever employed by them, I also wouldn't be confident enough to do this, and I wish it were any other way. This is inspiring, thank you.
asmor 14 hours ago
This is the line? Really?
Not all the other shit this administration has been doing?
God, I hate it here.
singlewind 11 hours ago
The beauty of balance is someone can say yes and someone can say no. No matter how good do you calculate there is theory behind.
paganel 14 hours ago
Jeff Dean could have done a lot of good and add his name to the list of signatories, seeing as how leaf of AI at Google or some such. He was supposed to be this super-smart dude, I guess he’s far from that.
Huge props for the the Google and OpenAI engineers that did sign this, for those that did realize that they’re fighting for a greater thing, not just for an extra zero or two added at the end of their bank accounts. Especially as they’re taking a great amount of risk by doing it, first of all, imo they are risking their current employment status.
yoyohello13 21 hours ago
I hope Anthropic will survive this. If they don’t it will just be perfect proof that you cannot be both moral and successful in the US.
gslepak 21 hours ago
Who cares whether the "company" survives? I've seen this movie. A few of them in fact. We're on the chopping block here, lol.
collinmcnulty 20 hours ago
We should care because if they win they empower others to stand up as well, and not just in the area of AI safety. Courage is contagious, and whatever else you think of Anthropic, they’re showing real courage here.
gslepak 19 hours ago
dakolli 20 hours ago
Yeah, I find it funny how we're now defending these AI companies, when they're clearly still an enemy of the working class.
They've made it incredibly clear their plans are to disenfranchise labor, and welcome in a world of God knows what with their technologies. Like they're making a stand on mass surveillance, this seems a bit like a red herring, cool they stop using their tools for war fighting, but continue to attack their fellow working working class?
All three of these companies are spending hundreds of millions to psyop decision makers across every industry to give your salary to them. Get out of here, with "We will not be divided" OpenAI, Google and Anthropic employees are not friends of labor and should not use our phrases.. or they'd sabotage and or quit.
And why is there no mention of how we caught OpenAI being used in government dashboards through Persona, only two weeks ago, that were directly connected to intelligence organizations and tools to identify if you are politician or high profile personds? OpenAI has been complicit in this since last January when 4o was the first model that qualified for "top secret operations"
(kind of weird how 4o went onto cause a bunch of people to go literally insane and commit crazy acts of violence yet is allowed to be used in the most sensitive aspects of government.. nothing to see here).
lerp-io 34 minutes ago
hax0ron3 20 hours ago
c1c3r0 20 hours ago
fourthark 21 hours ago
Most survive by bending. See e.g. Google and surveillance a decade ago.
Esophagus4 19 hours ago
From a revenue perspective I think they’ll be fine, right? Weren’t the value of the govt contracts $200m out of like $14b revenue?
Assuming the govt doesn’t take other crazy measures to punish them.
Aurornis 21 hours ago
Anthropic has enough investment money and enough additional investor interest that they can ride this out longer than this administration. It won’t be good for business, of course, but it’s not the end of their world.
> it will just be perfect proof that you cannot be both moral and successful in the US.
I hate this situation as much as anyone, but it’s a unique, first of its kind challenge. I don’t think it’s generalizable to anything. This is a unique situation.
voidfunc 21 hours ago
The only way they survive is if their board fires the CEO and they bend the knee. The other option is they are given the green light to sell to one of the US Governments trusted partners: Microsoft/Oracle/X.
jcgrillo 21 hours ago
Either way, the bribes will flow like wine, the message has been sent loud and clear
belter 21 hours ago
>> you cannot be both moral and successful in the US.
I assumed the use of massive scraped datasets, with copyrighted material and without consent, to train large AI models, had already established this.
drdeca 20 hours ago
Many people don’t think there is a moral case against training a model on copyrighted data without obtaining a license to do that specifically.
dluan 19 hours ago
oops turns out you will all be divided
paradoxyl 16 hours ago
More Far Left treason, documented.
ReptileMan 17 hours ago
It is really nice to see employees creating lists for the next round of laoffs themselves.
chkaloon 17 hours ago
Too late
csneeky 18 hours ago
Claude is better for much than GPT atm. You really think the government is going to hamstring the engineering of weapons and intelligence capabilities by not using it?
blaze998 20 hours ago
December 14, 2024
>After famed investor Marc Andreessen met with government officials about the future of tech last May, he was “very scared” and described the meetings as “absolutely horrifying.” These meetings played a key role on why he endorsed Trump, he told journalist Bari Weiss this week on her podcast.
>What scared him most was what some said about the government’s role in AI, and what he described as a young staff who were “radicalized” and “out for blood” and whose policy ideas would be “damaging” to his and Silicon Valley’s interests.
>He walked away believing they endorsed having the government control AI to the point of being market makers, allowing only a couple of companies who cooperated with the government to thrive. He felt they discouraged his investments in AI. “They actually said flat out to us, ‘don't do AI startups like, don't fund AI startups,” he said.
...
keep making petitions, watch the whole thing burn to the ground when Trump decides to channel the Biden ideas in this field.
lazzlazzlazz 18 hours ago
The signatories of this site are leaping at a misguided opportunity for moral credit, when the reality is that they're getting whipped into a left-leaning frenzy.
As Undersecretary Jeremy Lewin clarified today[1], these weighty decisions should not be made by activists inside companies, but made by laws and legitimate government.
[1]: https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
ChrisArchitect 19 hours ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47175931
jurschreuder 14 hours ago
They always already wanted it to be Grok, Grok is the only, what they call "not woke AI".
uwagar 10 hours ago
isnt the pentagon just asking for total access to source code and data silos of anthropic and openai...that we cant ask because its proprietary software?
lovich 21 hours ago
You’re kinda already conceding to some of your opponents points when you use legally invalid names like “Department of War”
I appreciate the sentiment but don’t preconcede to your opposition by using their framing.
uniq7 21 hours ago
In this case I think the opponents made a huge mistake by calling themselves Department of War, and it's something that can be exploited.
Department of Defense was the actual lie, the newspeak term. They were not really defending anything, they were using military power globally for pursuing economic interests. However, it was easy to convince people that the whole endeavor was a good thing, because defending your country against the baddies is good, and you should support anyone doing that (otherwise you'd be a traitor!). Thank you for your service (defending us).
On the other hand, the term Department of War is hard to sell, because most people don't want to participate in a war or support someone who wants to start one. Thank you for your service... invading other countries? killing and raping innocents? ransacking resources?
This is an irrelevant detail, but if I'd read the title "Department of Defense vs. Meta", I'd first think Meta is leaking confidential info to other countries. However, if I'd read "Department of War vs. Meta", I'd think Meta doesn't want to promote an unnecessary war.
Vaslo 19 hours ago
"Legally Invalid" lol - what?
lovich 14 hours ago
Yeah, it takes an act of Congress to rename a part of the government, normally it’s a milquetoast event like renaming a postal office, but this admin thinks the law doesn’t apply to them.
Currently the government executive branch is claiming they have that right and the legislative branch can get fucked.
I am taking advice from the current executive admin around names and continuing to call the Department of Defense by their biological name.
mulmen 21 hours ago
I'm disappointed Anthropic made this mistake as well.
amelius 12 hours ago
Hegseth is discovering the shittiness of the SaaS model.
Samarrrtthh 12 hours ago
why
senderista 18 hours ago
"We hope our leaders will put aside their differences and stand together"
nullbyte 21 hours ago
"He will not divide us!"
leonflexo 21 hours ago
What's that, a little speaker?
nom 21 hours ago
I miss those times :(
xeonmc 21 hours ago
Club Penguin was a gem. Now all we get are Roblox.
alsufinow 13 hours ago
W
HardCodedBias 15 hours ago
So much insanity.
Anthropic wanted a veto on use of force by USG. That is intolerable, no private party can have a veto over the sovereign. It is that simple.
Anthropic should have just walked away (and taken the settlement lumps) when they realized that the USG knew. But no, they started some crazy campaign.
This is so irrational on Anthropic. Purchasing managers across the US (and the world) have to understand now that while Anthropic has the best model on the planet, it is not rational (if you prefer it is not rational in ways commonly understood). It is a risk and must be treated as such.
rybosworld 7 hours ago
I don't love talking politics on this site. Hackernews has done a pretty decent job of staying non-political and I think that's been a positive thing.
AI is re-shaping American society in a lot of ways. And this is happening at a time where the U.S. is more politically divided than it's ever been. People who use LLMs regularly (most SWEs at this point) can understand the danger signs. The bad outcomes are not inevitable. But the conversations around this cannot only be held in internet forums and blogposts.
Hackernews is an echo chamber of early adopters of tech. The discussions had here don't percolate to the general population.
I believe many of us have a duty to make this feel real to the less technical people in our lives. Too many folks have an information filter that is one of Fox News/CNN/MSNBC. Fox is the worst on misinformation. The others are also bad. Their viewers will not hear, in any clear way, how the Trump admin is trying to bully AI companies into doing what it wants. This will be a headline or an article. A footnote not given the attention it deserves.
Plainly: there is an attempt to turn AI into a political weapon aimed at the general population. Misinformation and surveillance are already out of control. If you can, imagine that getting worse.
This feels like one of those hinge moments. If you can, have real-life conversations with people around you. Explain what's at stake and why it matters now, not later.
moogly 20 hours ago
We have international laws and rules of war. We have weapon treaties (well, some of them are expiring). Sure, not everyone is signatory, or even follow the conventions they have ratified, but at least having these things in place makes it even remotely possible to categorize and document violations and start processes towards rulebreakers and antihumanist actions.
So I looked into what they cooked up in 2023, plus which countries signed it (scroll down to a link to the actual text). It's an extraordinarily pathetic text. Insulting even.
https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-arms-control-deterrence-and-...
ineedaj0b 13 hours ago
really dumb. you don’t win this
HWNDUS7 16 hours ago
Sweet. Looking forward to another CTF season of He Will Not Divide Us.
I love performative acts of wealthy Silicon Valley drags.
verdverm 21 hours ago
Use the feedback forms within their platforms to let the companies know your thoughts
fzeroracer 21 hours ago
It's rather amusing that this is the proverbial 'red line', not y'know, everything else this administration has been tearing up and running roughshod over. Maybe this would've been less of an issue if companies were more proactive about this bullshit in the first place?
That's why it's hard for me to feel bad about companies suddenly finding themselves on the receiving end. They dug their grave inch by inch and are suddenly surprised when they get shoved into it.
imiric 15 hours ago
The levels of irony in this case are staggering.
The employees of these companies are complicit in creating the greatest data harvesting and manipulation machine ever built, whose use cases have yet to be fully realized, yet when the government wants to use it for what governments do best—which was reasonable to expect given the corporate-government symbiosis we've been living in for decades—then it's a step too far?
Give me a fucking break. Stop the performative outrage, and go enjoy the fruits of your labor like the rest of the elites you're destroying the world with.
alfiedotwtf 19 hours ago
It would be funny in the end if the only ones left to not say no to Trump were Alibaba
krautburglar 19 hours ago
You have 1) stolen everybody's shit and put it behind a paywall, 2) cornered the hardware market in some RICO-worthy offensive that has priced one of the few affordable pasttimes for young people out of reach, 3) changed your climate story (lie) on a dime, and started putting the horrible power-guzzling data centers on any strip of land within spitting distance of a power plant. I hope you all go out of business, and I hope it happens French Revolution style.
Of course they were going to use it for military purposes you spiritual abortions, and there is nothing your keyboard-soft hands can do about it.
duped 20 hours ago
The Department of War doesn't exist, don't meet the fascists on their own terms at any level. They don't debate or operate in good faith.
verisimi 17 hours ago
It's great that people are taking a moral position re their work, and are seemingly prepared to take a bit of a risk in expressing themselves.
However, if we're honest, Google has a long history of selling 'the people' out on domestic surveillance. There is even a good argument that this is what it was created for in the first place, given it was seeded with money from inqtel, the CIA venture capital fund. So, while I commend acting with your conscience in this (rather minor) case, and I'm glad to see people attempt to draw a line somewhere, what will this really come to? I strongly suspect this is event itself is just theater for the masses, where corporates and their employees get to stand up to government (yay!). The reality is probably all that is being complained about, and far worse, has been going on for years.
How far would these signatories go? Would they be prepared to walk away from all that money? Will they stop the rest of the dystopian coding/legislation writing, or is that stuff still ok (not that evil)?
Ultimately, is gaining the money worth the loss of one's soul? If you know better, and know that it is wrong to assist corporations and governments in cleaving people open for profit and control, but do it anyway for the house, private schools, holidays, Ferrari, only taking a stand in these performative, semi-sanctioned events - is this really the standard you accept for yourself? If so, then no problem. If not, what exactly are you doing the rest of the time? Are you able to switch your morality/heart/soul off? Judge yourself. If you find you are not acting in accord with yourself, everything is already lost.
jackblemming 20 hours ago
So big tech wants to court Trump with millions in donations and now that the big bully they supported is bullying them.. we’re supposed to feel some kind of sympathy? Am I missing something here? Why did Anthropic get involved with the military in the first place?
nilespotter 18 hours ago
These models are weapons whether the frontier provider founders and their trite and lofty mission statements like it or not.
Private individuals and private companies do not get to create a defensive weapon with unprecedented power in a new category in the US and not share it with the US military.
You guys are batshit insane.
remarkEon 20 hours ago
This whole episode is very bizarre.
Anthropic appears to be situating themselves where they are set up as the "ethical AI" in the mindspace of, well, anyone paying attention. But I am still trying to figure out where exactly Hegseth, or anyone in DoW, asked Anthropic to conduct illegal domestic spying or launch a system that removes HITL kill chains. Is this all just some big hypothetical that we're all debating (hallucinating)? This[1] appears to be the memo that may (or may not) have caused Hagesth and Dario to go at each other so hard, presumably over this paragraph:
>Clarifying "Responsible Al" at the DoW - Out with Utopian Idealism, In with Hard-Nosed Realism. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and social ideology have no place in the DoW, so we must not employ AI models which incorporate ideological "tuning" that interferes with their ability to provide objectively truthful responses to user prompts. The Department must also utilize models free from usage policy constraints that may limit lawful military applications. Therefore, I direct the CDAO to establish benchmarks for model objectivity as a primary procurement criterion within 90 days, and I direct the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment to incorporate standard "any lawful use" language into any DoW contract through which AI services are procured within 180 days. I also direct the CDAO to.ensure all existing AI policy guidance at the Department aligns with the directives laid out in this memorandum.
So, the "any lawful use" language makes me think that Dario et al have a basket of uses in their minds that they feel should be illegal, but are not currently, and they want to condition further participation in this defense program on not being required to engage in such activity that they deem ought be illegal.
It is no surprise that the government is reacting poorly to this. Without commenting on the ethics of AI-enabled surveillance or non-HITL kill chains, which are fraught, I understand why a department of government charged with making war is uninterested in debating this as terms of the contract itself. Perhaps the best place for that is Congress (good luck), but to remind: the adversary that these people are all thinking about here is PRC, who does not give a single shit about anyone's feelings on whether it's ethical or not to allow a drone system to drop ordinance on it's own.
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855671/-1/-1/0/ART...
sensanaty 11 hours ago
I'm going to copy a comment I made in a related thread:
I might be being a bit conspiratorial, but is anyone else not buying this whole song and dance, from either side? Anthropic keeps talking about their safeguards or whatever, but seeing their marketing tactics historically it just reads more like trying to posture and get good PR for "fighting the system" or whatever.
"Our AI is so advanced and dangerous Trump has to beg us to remove our safeguards, and we valiantly said no! Oh but we were already spying on people and letting them use our AIs in weapons as long as a human was there to tick a checkbox. Also, once our models improve enough then we'll be sending in The Borg to autonomously target our Enemies™"
I just don't buy anything spewing out of the mouths of these sociopathic billionaires, and I trust the current ponzi schemers in the US gov't even less.
Especially given how much astroturfing Anthropic loves doing, and the countless comments in this thread saying things like "Way to go Amodei, I'm subbing to your 200 dollar a month plan now forever!!11".
One thing I know for sure is that these AI degenerates have made me a lot more paranoid of anything I read online.
nobodywillobsrv 16 hours ago
It really feels like I am no longer impressed with Anthropic safety.
Do they have even a basic understanding of the different regimes of safety and what allegiance means to ones own state?
It would be fine to say they are opting out of all forms of protection against adversaries.
But it feels like just more insane naive tech bro stuff.
As someone outside the tech bro bubble in fintech in London, can somebody explain this in a way that doesn't indicate these are sort of kids in a playground who think there is no such thing as the wolf?
Again, opting out and specializing in tech that you are going to provide to your enemies AND friends alike is fine. That is a good specialization. But this is not what I hear. I hear protest songs not deep thinking of thousand year mind set.
politician 18 hours ago
I simply do not understand why Americans tech companies and their employees will hew and cry about supporting the military. For those of you who support their position, have you ever stopped to consider that your safe, comfortable lives of free speech and protests and TikTok and food and gas and Amazon Next-Day deliveries is enabled by a massive nuclear deterrent operated by the very military you oppose?
It is just so disappointing to come here and read these naive takes. Yes, Anthropic should be compelled to support the military using the DPA if necessary.
rectang 15 hours ago
> “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.”
— Colonel Jessup
politician 6 hours ago
No individual, whether a colonel or a CEO, has inherent authority over national security decisions. Authority flows through democratic institutions. A contractor can choose whether to participate, but national defense policy is determined by elected institutions, not private executives. If society believes AI should or should not be used for certain military purposes, the venue for that decision is democratic governance not unilateral corporate refusal or approval.
On a CBS interview this morning, Dario defended his position with the claim that he must act because "Congress is slow." CEOs can and should make decisions about what their companies build or refuse to build. What they cannot do is substitute their judgment for the constitutional processes that govern national security. We must not vest de facto policy control in unelected corporate leaders.
dingi 18 hours ago
It really shows how far the HN crowd is from reality.
hakrgrl 19 hours ago
1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW.
So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175
"Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "
busko 19 hours ago
For those who don't use X:
andai 16 hours ago
>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: it was explained elsewhere in this thread:
nobody_r_knows 17 hours ago
Redirect every tweet to x-cancel link: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/xcancelcom-redirect...
Saves you the hastle of visiting that shit-show.
jamiequint 17 hours ago
WTF is this garbage site?
nikolay 17 hours ago
TheDong 16 hours ago
esseph 17 hours ago
Gigachad 19 hours ago
Something doesn’t make sense here. His tweet claims he has exactly the same restrictions that Anthropic had.
skissane 17 hours ago
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.
qdotme 17 hours ago
squarefoot 16 hours ago
PakG1 17 hours ago
Jensson 18 hours ago
Sam probably told them they can renegotiate those restrictions in a year or so when the drama has died down.
patcon 18 hours ago
m3kw9 17 hours ago
labrador 17 hours ago
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.
ddtaylor 18 hours ago
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."
gritspants 19 hours ago
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.
straydusk 18 hours ago
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.
spuz 16 hours ago
foobarqux 18 hours ago
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.
Tadpole9181 18 hours ago
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)
jkaplowitz 17 hours ago
sudo_cowsay 18 hours ago
nurettin 16 hours ago
anigbrowl 18 hours ago
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...
moralestapia 19 hours ago
Makes 100% sense.
They said yes to the same thing.
karmasimida 19 hours ago
nikolay 17 hours ago
He's the reason why many people avoid OpenAI as he is among the top 3 most untrustworthy people in tech!
nashashmi 16 hours ago
Zuckerberg is number one?
LPisGood 16 hours ago
Who are the other two?
RobLach 18 hours ago
So all these OpenAI signers are resigning, or...?
jalapenos 17 hours ago
Why only have the cake when you can eat it too
mcs5280 18 hours ago
Remember when they removed him for not being consistently candid?
jalapenos 17 hours ago
And then Microsoft forced him back in on the grounds of: he's a scumbag but he's our scumbag so he's untouchable
dang 19 hours ago
Related ongoing thread:
OpenAI agrees with Dept. of War to deploy models in their classified network - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189650 - Feb 2026 (22 comments)
dataflow 18 hours ago
The wording I see is not exactly free of loopholes. I noted them on the other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47190163
xtracto 16 hours ago
When I started reading all these news, the thought that came to my mind is: how sweet of these companies to try this, but unfortunately I am sure that other countries advancing AI like China (deepseek, GLM, etc) or Russia, or whoever WILL have their companies' AI at their disposal
Unfortunately, this is the new arms race, race to the moon, and all that together.
neya 17 hours ago
This is not about wars or winning contracts. If you know about Sam's strategies - It's just business. This deal ensures Anthropic doesn't have the financial cushion that OpenAI desperately needs (they just raised billions, also trending on HN). Is it ethical? Probably not. But, all is fair in love and war (proverb).
puchatek 16 hours ago
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.
neya 16 hours ago
jalapenos 17 hours ago
Altman is a snake who uses words purely instrumentally, and this is well known.
He basically takes advantage of people's limited memories and default assumption that when a person says something its honest.
ahf8Aithaex7Nai 16 hours ago
I dislike the style of Altman's language about as much as I dislike the bullshit language used in politics or the self-incriminating, overly specific denials used by prominent figures to defend themselves against criminal allegations: “I have never had sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18 outside of my own family.”
The language is so coded that the many places where the core statement must be negated stand out like a sore thumb.
chamomeal 18 hours ago
Aaaaaand it’s gone
m3kw9 18 hours ago
Learn to read. “ 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.”
SlightlyLeftPad 16 hours ago
Meanwhile, the mass surveillance is outsourced to Flock
SilverElfin 17 hours ago
Greg Brockman who cofounded OpenAI is the biggest donor to Trump’s PAC. Altman claims they kept the same restrictions as Anthropic essentially. So my conclusion is OpenAI successfully bribed the government into ditching Anthropic and viciously attacking them by abusing their power (supply chain risk).
Probably the most corrupt way of killing a competitor I’ve heard of.
senderista 18 hours ago
"The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place."
So you better just let the guys with the guns do whatever they want.
busko 18 hours ago
Hoorah! shock and awe
mrcwinn 18 hours ago
OpenAI employees lol.
You’ve lost utterly and completely. Even if you, as an individual, are a good person.
nemo44x 19 hours ago
Correct. You will not be divided. You will likely be subtracted.
kopirgan 20 hours ago
We will not be divided! United in obeying only orders from woke governments, be it on gender ideology, "misinformation", "fact checking" or takedowns, cancellations, blackouts and bans.
charcircuit 20 hours ago
Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold a gun that you couldn't use against X or Y country. Private companies imposing such demands on our military should not be respected. Having weapons that can randomly detect a false positive and shut themselves down because they think you are using it wrong is a feature I would never want built in.
I have also been against these terms of services of restricting usage of AI models. It is ridiculous that these private companies get to dictate what I can or can't do with the tools. No other tools work like this. Every other tools is going to be governed by the legal system which the people of the country have established.
dlev_pika 20 hours ago
It sounds like you think that Anthropic is the first company regulating the use of their product. This is not a novelty whatsoever.
charcircuit 20 hours ago
No, but I find it obnoxious as an end user.
Esophagus4 19 hours ago
hparadiz 19 hours ago
bcooke 20 hours ago
Taking principled stands should absolutely be respected.
charcircuit 20 hours ago
I can respect a stance while simultaneously calling out how much I dislike it.
WorkerBee28474 19 hours ago
> Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold a gun that you couldn't use against X or Y country
That kind of happens with F35s that the US sells to its allies.
tibbydudeza 10 hours ago
Only Israel can make software upgrades and changes to their F35.
joshuamorton 20 hours ago
> Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold a gun that you couldn't use against X or Y country.
The point here, of course, being that Anthropic is very specifically claiming to not be a gun manufacturer, and Hegseth's response is that the DoD (W?) will force anthropic to build guns.
hakrgrl 19 hours ago
How cute they bought a domain and everything
infamouscow 21 hours ago
[flagged]
hax0ron3 20 hours ago
>The executive branch can categorize AI technology as equivalent to nuclear weapons technology.
Theoretically, but this would run the risk of collapsing the US tech sector, which at this point is a significant part of the strength of the US economy, and thus making it likely that the Republicans will lose power in the next elections.
infamouscow 5 hours ago
I don't view that as an additional new risk. Investors are already all-in on AI, despite being one geopolitical event away from apocalypse regarding Taiwan.
tomhow 20 hours ago
Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
angusik 16 hours ago
I'm here to support Pentagon (: