Discussion

Where things stand with the Department of War

PostOnce: The rich people are fighting with each other again.

nickvec: Not sure why Dario apologized for the internal memo leak. Seems like an odd thing to backtrack on.

nubg: link to the memo?

stingraycharles: Probably because it hurts its position either in court or during negotiations with the DoW.

slopinthebag: The drama between the DePaRtMeNt oF wAr and Anthropic feels like high school shit, which is both funny, a little terrifying, and a good reminder that none of us really ever grow up.Like the title of this reminds me of how me and my friends used to talk about girls and guys in high school lol."Hey bro, where do you and X stand? You gonna g̵o̵ ̵o̵u̵t̵ ̵w̵i̵t̵h̵ ̵h̵e̵r̵ ̵a̵g̵a̵i̵n̵ gonna finally sign that contract or not?"

xyzzy9563: It looks like AI safety swings both ways - the government has deemed Anthropic unsafe for them. They asked for regulation and got it served to them.

hglaser: It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue.When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds.Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic and not moral grounds. To do so, they have to couch it in language clarifying that they would love to support war, actually, except for these two narrow exceptions. And their careful word choice suggests that they are either navigating or expect to navigate significant blowback for asking for two narrow exceptions.My, the world has changed.

rockskon: Military isn't quite as aggressively catering to the people who historically have bullied techies as they used to.Aside from that - there's a lot more people in tech now. It grew too fast too quick to maintain all the values it had back in the 00's and earlier.

simonw: Raised an eyebrow a little at this sentence: "Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences."

PostOnce: Let me rephrase it for you:"We both want a docile American public who go along with our desires so we can achieve goals that may be contrary to the interests of the American public."

6thbit: > Our most important priority right now is making sure that our warfighters and national security experts are not deprived of important tools in the middle of major combat operations.> we had been having productive conversations with the Department of War over the last several days, both about ways we could serve the Department that adhere to our two narrow exceptions, and ways for us to ensure a smooth transition if that is not possible.Why are people leaving openAI when this is Anthropic's stance? Are their two narrow requirements enough to draw the ethical boundary people are comfortable with?

mempko: Long time ago I worked for a company that I learned was selling it's software to help target people during the Iraq war. I quit because I cannot support building software that kills people.This is a message to people working for that line of business at Anthropic. You don't have to do it, you can quit. If you are helping this insane administration to conduct war on Iran quit. You don't need to have that kind of blood on your hands.I saw a someone's hypothesis that a generative model was used to help classify buildings to decide what to bomb and that the Girls school was misclassified. If this was an Anthropic model, I can't imagine what it feels like being a worker there in that line of business.

abujazar: What's next, bribing Trump with gold bars and donations to "charity"?

janfoeh: Hey, American HN users:does it fill you with at least some kind of ineffable dread to see your once-lionized vanguards of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness grovel and almost debase themselves before your government?Can you even remember the status quo ante, or have you already doomscrolled that out of mind, out of sight?

jazzyjackson: DoD still has not meaningfully moved to the DoW moniker, to me it represents the most fascist tendency, to make announcements and presume that’s enough to change the truth on the ground. The legal entity one contracts with is DoD. Going along with “DoW” is signal to me that a party has capitulated to the most absurd form of governance.

ipnon: I think this is one of the weaknesses of rationalism and effective altruism, is that it tries to make a clean break from the common law legal reasoning that the government, and thus corporations, operate on. While I find rationalism to be a useful lens, the fact is that the common law legal framework is totally dominant, and so these deontological arguments made rationally collapse very quickly when translated to the dominant framework.

nickvec: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCmdjFGXwAAPI3d?format=jpg&name=...

ryandrake: > it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds.(spoiler alert)Wasn't this one of the plot points of the Val Kilmer movie Real Genius? They had to trick the students into creating a weapon by siloing them off from each other and having them build individual but related components? How far we've fallen! Nobody has to take ethics during undergrad anymore I guess...

kerabatsos: God bless you for referencing that film.

ArchieScrivener: >maintain all the values it had.You must be joking. Which values, set by who? Jobs the marketer, Ellison the tyrant, or Gates the sociopath?Please, spare us. They built a surveillance state masquerading as marketing companies and banal products. Don't play remember when if you don't actually remember.

jiggawatts: Reminds me of the story of someone's woman working for a research lab to improve the computer-controlled automatic emergency landings of planes with total power failure.... or so she was told.She was unknowingly designing glide-bomb avionics.

brookst: It’s a mistake to conflate “wants to spend money on the most ethical option available” with “ think the most ethical option available is perfect”Why wouldn’t you move your dollars to someplace incrementally better?

6thbit: You make it sound as if "the most ethical option available" is.. actually ethical?Their statement doesn't make it sound they are incrementally better, they are trying to bend over backwards to keep working for war.

ptaksh: Millenials were famously called "generation sell". It is all corporate now, DEI one day, ICE the next. Just follow your leaders.

ryandrake: I've also quit a job where the products I was working were meant to be deployed to CBP to hunt down immigrants. It's a nice gesture, but it won't stop these companies. They just hired someone else without an ethical backbone, and continued the project like nothing happened.Tech leadership is rotten to the core, and that can't be fixed by individuals making a stand.

shawn_w: Pragmatically, it's for the best to use its preferred name instead of legal name when sucking up to the department and Trump to try to get back in good graces.

smackeyacky: They have a crypto coin for explicit bribing

zmmmmm: > I apologize for the tone of the postWhat a world we live in now where private companies are apologising for the "tone" of their speech while official representatives of the government daily express blatant lies and misrepresentations without the slightest fear of consequence.It really is incredibly sad that what was one of the most respected countries in the world has descended to this - an utter mockery of a functioning democracy.

sgustard: Would love to enumerate those commonalities. Run by a psychopath? Commitment to violent lethality? Burning billions of dollars for uncertain goals? (ok there's one)

postsantum: Certain patterns at top ranks?

cat_plus_plus: There are so many inference providers not working for Department of War. Even Alibaba and sure China has lots of issues but they are not bombing anyone now if that's your first priority. Or else, smaller US / European / Asian companies with pure civilian focus. SOTA open weights models they serve are perfectly suitable for coding and chat. I run a local Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-NVFP4 instance and it writes entire Android apps from scratch and that's a midsized model.

zb3: Nowhere, because there's no such department..

kypro: Most people in tech today are in it for the money.Pre-2012 no one want into tech for money

Terr_: You can also "invest" money for Trump's family to "earn" their "management fees."

RcouF1uZ4gsC: > My, the world has changed.No. Your tech experience was an aberration.For almost all of history, including recent history, tech and military went together. Whether compound bows, or spears or metallurgy.Euler used his math to develop artillery tables for the Prussian army.von Neumann helped develop the atom bomb.The military played a huge role in creating Silicon Valley.However, to people who grew up in the mid to late 90s, it is easy to miss that that period was a major aberration. You had serious people talking about the end of history. You had John Perry Barlow's utterly naive Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace which looks more and more naive every year.

CurtHagenlocher: Nothing brings home the Orwellian nature of USA 2026 more for me than the word "warfighter".

cyberax: Just remember, we're not at war with Iran. The House Speaker said so.

rmm78: we are though, they plotted to assassinate the US president, not to mention being the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the middle east, attacking our allies

jeffbee: I'm a decade older so maybe I missed the memo but I think you'll have a hard time naming tech companies that actually refused to work with the military, which were large enough and important enough to be in danger of selling something to the military (i.e. not Be Inc. or Beenz.com)Clearly, all of the traditional big leagues were lined up to take the Army's money. IBM, Control Data, Cray, SGI, and HP all viewed weapons research as a major line of business. DEC was the default minicomputer of the DoD and Sun created features to court the intelligence community including the DoD "Trusted Workstation". Sperry Rand defined "military industrial complex".

hedora: You got me wondering, so I checked to see how much Anthropic's bribed Trump so far. According to Dario, Trump has been soliciting bribes, but they refused to pay, and the contract "renegotiation" is retribution:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47269649"Amodei claimed that tensions between his company and the Trump administration stem partly from the firm’s refusal to financially support Trump and its approach to AI regulation and safety issues."

tastyface: The reckoning will come.Watch as the same people pushing for war today will pretend they were always against it 10 years from now.I guess we're just doomed to repeat the same cycles.

creatonez: > I would like to reiterate that we had been having productive conversations with the Department of WarYou should have no conversation at all. They are war criminals committing a genocide in Gaza. And so you are too, by being a direct collaborator.

rmm78: why, DoW goes after Iranian islamist regime, not you

unethical_ban: As the Heritage Foundation has said, we are in a cold civil war for our country and right now, the authoritarians are winning.

DesaiAshu: The Department of Defense was named as such after the detonations of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and NagasakiWe - as a humanity - collectively recognized the weight of our creation, and decided to walk backDiscussing “AI alignment” in the same breadth as aligning with a “Department of War” (in any country) is simply not an intellectually sound positionNone of the countries we’ve attacked this year pose an existential threat to humanity. In contrast, striking first and pulling Europe, Russia, and China into a hot war beginning in the Middle East surely poses a greater collective threat than bioweapons, sentient AI, or the other typical “AI alignment” concernsWhy aren’t there more dissidents among the researcher ranks?

qsera: >refuse to let their systems be used for war..I don't want wars.But tell me, what would you like your country to do when conflicts arise due to want of natural resources? Would you want your country to just give up that resource your people depend on, like may be 50/50?Do you believe it will always be possible to settle on a solution in a peaceful way that works for everyone?

fwip: Personally, I'd rather that my country (USA) be taken over by China than bomb innocents in the Middle East.

bobbiechen: >I’m going to tell you about how I took a job building software to kill people.>But don’t get distracted by that; I didn’t know at the time.Caleb Hearth: "Don't Get Distracted" https://calebhearth.com/dont-get-distracted

jmward01: Yes, and even their two exceptions, only one is on moral grounds. They don't want to provide tools for autonomous killing machines because the technology isn't good enough, yet. Once that 'yet' is passed they will be fine supplying that capability. Anthropic is clearly the better company over OpenAI, but that doesn't mean they are good. 'lesser evil' is the correct term here for sure.

skeledrew: The flip side is it's very unlikely that AI won't become that good any time soon, so it'll always remain a means to hold out. Especially since nobody has explicitly defined what "good enough" entails.

hamdingers: I continue to be surprised how many people haven't heard term until now, it's been in common use in the US for 20+ years.To me the most Orwellian thing is everyone using the newspeak name for the DoD.

_--__--__: DoW is the opposite of newspeak, it is much more transparent and honest about what that organization is and has been for my entire life

doom2: As much as Trump and Hegseth would like it to be called the Department of War, it still takes an act of Congress to change the name of the Department of Defense. No reason to call it by anything else until that happens.

eduction: > they have to couch it in language clarifying that they would love to support war, actually,Yes they do because they are trying to sell to the Department of War.No one made Anthropic try to be a military contractor. It’s pretty much the definition of being a military contractor that your product helps to kill people.

mrcwinn: The internal memo did read as fairly unhinged and political, which is not the message Dario likes to present. I'm glad he addressed this. It was unprofessional and unhelpful - even if Sam Altman is, in fact, a disgusting lunatic.

skeledrew: Cringing every time I see the word "warfighter", and disappointed that they're still pushing to keep that contract.

jmyeet: When people (myself included FWIW) warn about the dangers of American imperialism, it's because:1. As President Eisenhower said in his farewell address in 1961 [1], every dollar spent on the military-industrial complex is a dollar not spent on schools or houses or hospitals or bridges;2. Every American company with sufficient size eventually becomes a defense contractor. That's really what's happened with the tech companies. They're moving in lockstep with the administration on both domestic and foreign policy;3. The so-called "imperial boomerang" [2]. Every tactic, weapon and strategy used against colonial subjects are eventually used against the imperial core eg [3]. Do you think it's an accident that US police forces have become increasingly militarized?The example I like to give is China's high speed rail. China started building HSR only 20 years ago and now has over 32,000 miles of HSR tracks taking ~4M passengers per day. The estimated cost for the entire network is ~$900B. That's less than the US spends on the military every year.I really what Steve Jobs would've done were he still alive. Tim Apple has bent the knee and kissed the ring. Would Steve Jobs have done the same? I'm not so sure. He may well have been ousted (again) because of it.Then again, I think Steve Jobs was the only Silicon Valley billlionaire not in a transhumanist polycule with a more than even chance of being in the files.[1]: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang[3]: https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-polic...

randerson: Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk.Obviously anyone who has used LLMs know they are not on par with humans. There also needs to be an accountability framework for when software makes the wrong decision. Who gets fired if an LLM hallucinates and kills people? Perhaps Anthropic's stance is to avoid liability if that were to happen.

unethical_ban: Isn't this the moral hazard of war as it becomes more of a distance sport? That powerful governments can order the razing of cities and assassinate leaders with ease?We need to do it because our enemies are doing it, in any case.

iugtmkbdfil834: It came later than I anticipated, but it did come after all. There is a reason companies like 9mother are working like crazy on various way to mitigate those risks.

tw04: > I really what Steve Jobs would've done were he still alive. Tim Apple has bent the knee and kissed the ring. Would Steve Jobs have done the same? I'm not so sure. He may well have been ousted (again) because of it.Given that Steve Jobs was best friends with Larry Ellison, I’d say he wouldn’t have bent the knee because he would’ve been standing hand in hand with Trump, just like Larry.

saulpw: The danger is that we won't be sending these fully-autonomous drones to 'war', but anytime a person in power feels like assassinating a leader or taking out a dissident, without having to make a big deal out of it. The reality is that AI will be used, not merely as a weapon, but as an accountability sink.

jghn: Could they please start using the correct name? Department of Defense?

Jeremy1026: They still want that contract so they'll continue to pander.

bradleyjg: If you graduated in 2007, your classmates were born around 1985. Their parents were mostly born in the mid 50s to the mid 60s and came to political consciousness either during the Vietnam War or immediately thereafter. No war since has been even close to as unpopular or frankly as salient. It’s the passing out of cultural relevance of that war that you are noticing.

asveikau: > No war since has been even close to as unpopular or frankly as salient.Iraq.Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too.Also keep in mind when making comparisons that the Vietnam war was not unpopular with Americans at the beginning, and many people justified it all throughout, using language that will be similar to observers of later wars.

tedd4u: What’s a “warfighter?” Do they come from the “Gulf of America?” We used to call them servicemen or service members. Emphasizing they served the people. I guess that’s too effeminate for our roided up and ironically hyper-insecure Secretary of Defense.

fwip: I think it's the opposite. The human cost of war is part of what keeps the USA from getting into wars more than it already is - no politician wants a second Vietnam.If war is safe to wage, then it just means we'll do it more and kill more people around the globe.

Chance-Device: Dario, you are making a conscious choice to start developing autonomous AI weapons. That is what all of this is about, that is what you have offered to work with the DoW towards. Your red line is not that autonomous AI weapons are inherently wrong, potentially an existential threat to humanity and should be banned via treaty like chemical and biological weapons; rather you believe Claude is just not there yet and you want to help close the gap.Do you have plans to work on a kinder, gentler form of domestic mass surveillance as well? Or will you simply leave it up to others to disguise the eventual turning of your foreign surveillance models inwards towards the United States themselves?

relaxing: Sperry Rand? You’re up awful late grandpa.

kmeisthax: The Overton window has not shifted, at least not among rank-and-file tech workers. There was very loud and vocal internal opposition to building and selling weapons[0]. They all lost the argument in the boardrooms because the US government writes very big checks. But I am told they are very much still around.CEOs are bound to sociopathically amoral behavior - not by the law, but by the Pareto-optimal behavior of the job market for executives. The law obligates you to act in the interests of the shareholders, but it does not mandate[1] that Line Go Up. That is a function of a specific brand of shareholder that fires their CEOs every 18 months until the line goes up.In 2007, Big Tech had plenty of the consumer market to conquer, so they could afford to pretend to be opposed to selling to the military. But the game they were playing was always going to end with them selling to the military. Once they were entrenched they could ignore the no-longer-useful-to-us-right-now dissenters, change their politics on a dime, and go after the "real money".[0] Several of the sibling comments are mentioning hypothetical scenarios involving dual-use technologies or obfuscated purposes. Those are also relevant, but not the whole story.[1] There are plenty of arguments a CEO could use to defend against a shareholder lawsuit that they did not take a particularly short-sighted action. Notably, that most line-go-up actions tend to be bad long-term decisions. You're allowed to sell low-risk investments.

senadir: What stops the DoW from going after me? As a Middle Easterner? And once it's done with me, why wouldn't it go after you? as its branches did, locally?

Esophagus4: Yes, and IBM had a particularly tainted history from WWII.For every company that stands on values, there is another that will do some shady shit for a dollar.

iugtmkbdfil834: I think you are painting everyone in tech industry by the excesses of the management class. I am not going to say we are all paragons of ethical behavior, but I can virtually guarantee that compared to Ellison, most here are veritable saints.

camillomiller: Were you earning seven figures tho? That suppresses moral stances rather quickly I reckon

fwip: Perhaps. It should do the opposite though - you've likely got enough in the bank that you don't need to work a day in your life again.

skeledrew: US took out Iran's supreme leader. It's simple tit for tat.

6thbit: > they have to couch it in language clarifying that they would love to support war,This is what baffles me when I see people flocking to them for subscriptions based on these events.

davidw: If LLM's are indeed a game changer professionally, you kind of need to pick one.Personally, I loathe seeing power shift towards mega corporations like that, away from being able to run your own computer with free software, but it feels like the economics are headed that way in terms of productivity.

fwip: Maybe it's bad that Anthropic wants to embrace the Department of War?

krapp: The correct name is the Department of War.Calling it the Department of Defense implies a system of laws, checks and balances which no longer exists.

nubg: thanks a lot

rockskon: Values relating to mistrust of the military (as per the context of the post I responded to) as well as values relating to ownership of the tech you bought and of personal privacy.Get off your high horse and stop talking down to a person you don't know. Take your anger out on someone else.

malfist: Safe for whom?

fwip: Safe for the aggressors, I mean. If war is easy and cheap for us to wage, we will do more of it, and likely make the world a worse place.

bradleyjg: > IraqNot in same ballpark. There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one.> Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too.No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture. Especially on the saliency axis.

shloosh: Not everything has to be a conspiracy or some 4D chess business move. Dario is a morally motivated person and regretted the tone that was being conveyed in that memo, so he apologized.

postalrat: Department of peace sounds even better than defense.

jakelazaroff: What do you mean, "hallucinates and kills people"? Killing people is the thing the military is using them for; it's not some accidental side effect. It's the "moral choice" the same way a cruise missile is — some person half a world away can lean back in their chair, take a sip of coffee, click a few buttons and end human lives, without ever fully appreciating or caring about what they've done.

AnbdgK: I do not think that anyone but the US and Israel have assassinated leaders in the last 30 years. I also question their autonomous drone advancement. Russia and China did not have the means to help Venezuela and they do not have the means to help Iran.

moron4hire: I feel like these stories are apocryphal. I mean, I can't say for certain that no US DoD research program used subterfuge to trick the performers into working on The Most Racist Bomb. But I can say that in 20 years I've never seen a dearth of people ready, willing, able, and actively participating with full knowledge that they are creating The Fastest Bomb and The Sneakiest Bom and The Biggest Bomb Without Actually Going Nuclear.IDK, maybe it's different outside the National Capitol Region. But here, you could probably shout "For The Empire" as a toast in the right bars and people wouldn't think you were joking.

reaperducer: I feel like these stories are apocryphal.They're not. But if it makes you feel better to believe that, everyone has their own coping mechanism.

__MatrixMan__: Among those who would resist, half would've done so outwardly by now and been fired, the other half would be hiding their activity. In both cases we wouldn't be hearing about them now.

martinwright: Your logic here is sound, sure. But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensive mechanism

mempko: There is a reason you call it 'fuck you money'

malfist: Sure they did. Thats why we only discovered it after we assassinated their current and former leaders.

malfist: DoW is newspeak. Thats not it's name.

throwaway5752: Then the US killed 150 Iranian sailors in international waters that were demonstrating no threat. A bunch of them drowned - or for that matter, might still be alive in air pockets, waiting to ie - because we're not at war.

moron4hire: What? I'm not questioning whether the weapons research actually happened. I'm questioning the sincerity of people claiming they didn't know what they were doing. I've seen plenty of weapons programs. They aren't a secret to the people working on them. My point is, the government doesn't need to lie to researchers or even pay them very well to get them to develop weapons because there are plenty of intelligent-enough people willing to do it almost for free.

WatchDog: After hearing Palmer Luckey's argument for the name change[0], I tend to think it's good change.Some of his arguments:It used to be called the department of war, and it had a better track record with regard to foreign conflict, under that name then it did under the DoD name.Department of war is a more honest name, department of defense is a somewhat newspeak term, although "Department of Peace" would be worse.It's harder to seek funding for "war", then it is to seek funding for "defense". If you ask someone, "Do you want to spend money on education or war?", you will get a different answer asking, "Do you want to spend money on education or defense?".[0] Palmer Luckey talking to Mike Rowe about the name change: https://youtu.be/dejWbn_-gUQ?t=1007

hedora: The one where he accuses Trump of retaliating against Anthropic after failing to solicit a bribe?That should be the headline here. We know Trump personally made $4B last year, and we know he's been using the full power of the US gov't to retaliate against people that don't "support" him.Come 2029, when there's an opportunity for the corruption trials to start, this sort of behavior needs to be front of the public mind, both at the top, and throughout his network of appointees.

genghisjahn: Russia and other states have demonstrably conducted targeted killings.

AndrewKemendo: There is an Iraq group but we’re just a much smaller group

master_crab: Correct that there was no Iraq generation because there was no draft and numbers were way smaller. Vietnam had over half a million troops at the height of that war. Iraq had under 170k.But the war was still deeply unpopular. There is a reason America did the extraordinary - to that point - and elect its first black president.The economic toll will be greater with these wars than Vietnam.

jeffbee: This wasn't really that long ago.https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6735255,-122.389804,3a,31.2y...

jwkpiano1: It very much still exists, and statements like this are what’s called “obeying in advance.” Don’t do it.

jmward01: The people that actually target and launch these things do think about what they have done. It is the people ordering them to do it that don't. There is a difference, I hope.

metalcrow: Can you give a list of high quality alternatives? Morally speaking i would put China on par with the US if not worse (due to their ongoing Uyghur genocide). I will check out SOTA but would be interested in others.

jmward01: War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral. The only best choice is to fight at every turn making war easy. Our adversaries will, or likely already have, gone the autonomous route. We should be doing everything we can to put major blockers on this similar to efforts to block chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The logical end of autonomous targeting and weapons is near instant mass killing decisions. So at a minimum we should think of autonomous weapons in a similar class as those since autonomy is a weapon of mass destruction. But we currently don't think that way and that is the problem.Eventually, unfortunately, we will build these systems but it is weak to argue that the technology isn't ready right now and that is why we won't build them. No matter when these systems come on line there will be collateral damage so there will be no right time from a technology standpoint. Anthropic is making that weak argument and that is primarily what I am dismissive of. The argument that needs to be made is that we aren't ready as a society for these weapons. The US government hasn't done the work to prove they can handle them. The US people haven't proven we are ready to understand their ramifications. So, in my view, Anthropic shouldn't be arguing the technology isn't ready, no weapon of war is ever clean and your hands will be dirty no matter how well you craft the knife. Instead Anthropic should be arguing that we aren't ready as a society and that is why they aren't going to support them.

relaxing: Jobs the Marketer! You want to lump Jobs in with Ellison because he had the gall to purchase advertising for his products?

lekdjH: Messages about project Maven, Palantir and Anthropic integration are flagged by certain interest groups:"Palantir's Maven uses Anthropic's Claude code, sources say."https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-...It is always astonishing that the reviled mainstream press is more critical than hackers these days.

esrauch: They do a lot more war than defense don't they?

skybrian: At a technical level, I don't believe they're specifically working on targeting anyone. They're providing a general-purpose API that Palantir is presumably using to build the target-finding software.I imagine that's why the implementation got so far along before this blew up. Someone at Anthropic talked with someone at Palantir and they had a "you did what? Did you read the contract terms" moment, and that was after it went into production.

datsci_est_2015: > Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members.I guess let the record state that I am deeply morally opposed to automated killing of any kind.I am sick to my stomach when I really try to put myself in the shoes of the indigenous peoples of Africa who were the first victims of highly automatic weapons, “machine guns” or “Gatling guns”. The asymmetry was barbaric. I do hope that there is a hell, simply that those who made the decision to execute en masse those peoples have a place to rot in internal hellfire.To even think of modernizing that scene of inhumane depravity with AI is despicable. No, I am deeply opposed to automated killing of any kind.

jwkpiano1: The problem with this argument is that the _original_ Department of War is now called the Department of the Army, which existed alongside the Department of the Navy. Besides, it’s a moot point unless Congress actually changes the name.

jrflowers: The biggest protest in world history was in response to the invasion of Iraq. It’s reasonable to call it unpopular.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_Iraq_War_prot...

reaperducer: If "This doesn't fit into my mental model, so everyone else must be lying" is how you deal with things you didn't personally experience, do what you have to.

dmd: “someone’s woman”?

K0balt: lol I am guessing that was an autocorrect error.

SoftTalker: > They just hired someone else without an ethical backboneOr who simply had a different point of view than you.

frinxor: It’s a business decision.

zmmmmm: that just makes it sadder?

SoftTalker: Lots of people working on the Manhattan project did not know what they were working on. The core group of physicists did, but not many others.

qsera: >But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensiveI am not. Every country is corrupt, and war makes a lot of money for powerful people, but does it justify sabotaging your own existence?

BryantD: Also in Good Will Hunting, when Will (Matt Damon) delivers a scathing job rejection to the NSA.1997. The War on Terror has a lot to answer for.https://youtu.be/tH0bTpwQL7U

thecarbonista: Wow, anthropic really shit the bed on that one.

jltsiren: A new term was needed some decades ago. "man" titles have not been politically correct for a while, "member" sounds awkward and bureaucratic. In some other languages, "soldier" can be used for all military personnel, while English ended up with a more narrow meaning.

pazimzadeh: also relevant to Ender's Game, which came out 8 months before Real Genius

ks2048: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_and_gov...

ses1984: The only difference between now and 2007 is the curtain has been pulled back revealing how things have always worked.

freshfunk: Yeah, that's completely unbelievable. You don't just accidentally call Trump a "dictator" or go on an extended tirade about Sam Altman. Clearly, he was speaking how he truly felt and how he's doing damage control.

K0balt: Yeah, it wasn’t some kind of ethical utopia, but it sure as hell has gotten a lot less ethical in real terms. When you start Making things operate in ways that people dislike or are deceived by, it’s a very slippery slope, because everything from there all the way through eating babies is just a matter of degree.Trite as it may seem, don’t be evil is actually a very, very strong statement, as is do no harm. 70 percent of tech market cap these days is a a million tiny harms, a warm pool of diluted evil.

gcanyon: "Why do you wear that toy on your head?" "Because if I wear it anywhere else it chafes""A laser is a beam of coherent light." "Does that mean it talks?""Your stutter has improved." "I've been giving myself shock treatment." "Up the voltage.""In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'""Is there anything I can do for you? Or...more to the point... to you?""Can you drive a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?" "...not right now." "A girl's got to have her standards.""What are you looking at? You're laborers, you're supposed to be laboring! That's what you get for not having an education!"-- I'm sure I could remember more if I thought about it for a bit. That movie made quite an impression on young me.

jghn: It is the DoD u tip congress says otherwise

bfung: [delayed]

moron4hire: I think you could get away with that excuse in 1945 when this whole system was first being created from scratch. It's been 80 years since then.

lp4v4n: >1. As President Eisenhower said in his farewell address in 1961 [1], every dollar spent on the military-industrial complex is a dollar not spent on schools or houses or hospitals or bridges;This humanist view unfortunately doesn’t hold anymore in the modern world. Boomers will be happy as long as not a single dollar is spent on housing, so that their own homes can appreciate in value. Republicans would rather burn money than spend it on houses, hospitals, or bridges that might benefit immigrants or “other people” more than themselves.I used an American political party only as a reference, but the same phenomenon can be seen in many countries around the world. Society has become incredibly cynical and has regressed a lot in terms of humanity.

squibonpig: I'm not sure there's really any good large model providers

maxlybbert: It's easy to say "I will never let the Department of Defense use my search engine for evil!" Or "the more money they spend on me, the less they have for weapons!" ( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt ) when you aren't really expecting money. But when somebody shows up with a check, it becomes much harder to stick to your principles. Especially after watching Palantir (and "don't be evil" Google) rake in plenty of dough.Also: https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38... .

SV_BubbleTime: This is such a foot stomping childish thing to get caught up on. It does not at all matter what a dept is called. Try to get over the extremely superficial.

atmavatar: I think my favorite exchange was the following:Professor Hathaway: "I want to start seeing more of you around in the lab."Chris Knight: "Fine. I'll gain weight."

nickff: The Gatling Gun was first deployed in the US civil war, not in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gunThe “machine gun” has a more complicated history, and the first practical example may have been Gatling’s, or an earlier example used in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

AlexErrant: Reddit discussion from 2016 (so before Trump).https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4ta3hh/cmv_th...There are many reasons to detest the current political landscape. Don't get distracted.

applfanboysbgon: "Awkward and bureacratic" is literally the point of naming conventions commonly adopted by democracies. Titles like "president" or "prime minister", departments like "Department of Defense", referring to government employees as "civil servants", etc. are all intentional measures meant to strip away the prestige and egotism associated with positions of authority in an effort to avoid it going to people's heads, and remind them that they are meant to serve the good of the public that pays for their existence rather than ruling over them.

SV_BubbleTime: Really? You made it through Covidpocalypse, but the there warfighter is a big problem?

daemonologist: It's been in use by overly earnest DoD officials and Raytheon salespeople. But no normal person would use it unironically.However I suppose Amodei in this context can be included in the former group.

Computer0: "As we wrote on Thursday, we are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department, supporting frontline warfighters with applications such as intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations, and more."

lavezzi: It's disgusting honestly. There are likely at least 136 directly reported civilian and child deaths linked to the operations where their services were used. And they are very proud.

metalcrow: What tech companies were these? I was younger in 2007 but i feel like i would remember if companies were openly refusing to participate in war.

esafak: Such protests are commonplace at Google: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-...

Fricken: The troops were told they're headed for Armageddon this go round

maxlybbert: Well, they made a big deal about saying that while they sold their software to the Defense Department, it wasn't actually being used to kill people. Except for well-known military contractors (e.g., Raytheon), who have sold plenty of software specifically to kill people.I guess there's a reason we saw plenty of articles about software used somewhat defensively -- such as distinguishing whether a particular "bang" was a gunshot, and where it likely came from -- instead of offensively -- such as improvements to targeting software.

pinnochio: I agree it won't fix the problem, but marginal drops in labor supply and skill can still have an impact.

bfung: [delayed]

FpUser: >"Boomers will be happy as long as not a single dollar is spent on housing"Not sure what boomers you are talking about. I for one am disgusted at what is happening with the things in general and with the housing in particular. I do not want my house to appreciate Ad infinitum. I do not want to have ever growing class of have-not's so that few jerks can own the governments and half of the world.

agigao: Around 10 years ago, in college, in Calculus class I had a very ambitious classmate, wanted to go to DARPA and work on Robotics. I asked if he was thinking it through solely from technical perspective or considering ethics side as well. Clearly, he didn't understand the question and I directly inquired - what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing? His response - that's not my problem.After spending couple of years studying in the US, I came to conclusion that executives and board members in industry doesn't care about society or humans, even universities don't push students towards critical thinking and ethics, and all has turned into a vocational training, turning humans into crafting tools.The same time, at Harvard, I attended VR innovation week and the last panel discussion of the day was Ethics and Law, which was discussed by Law Professor, a journalist and a moderator and was attended a handful of people. I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion. The discussion basically was - how product companies build affects the society? Laws aren't founders problem, that's what lawyers are for, and ethics - who cares, right?This frenzy, this rat race towards next billion dollar company at any cost, has tore down the fabric of the society to the individual thinking level; or more like not thinking, just wanting and needing.

EMIRELADERO: My pet theory is that this has been accelerated due to the cultural rejection of the humanities as worthy of study.Orwell spoke about this: https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien> "The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook."

Rohunyyy: See in your case with the military you can directly say, hey my code will be used to bomb other people possibly. But in today's times it isn't (I am sure even then) so cut and dry. I worked in AdTech industry (like 60% of the bay area techies). So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kill them. Scam ads. Insurance ads and then people not getting cancer meds from the same insurance. Am I responsible for those deaths? I would say Yes.But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent)We are all on a Titanic the way I see it. It's just the DARPA guy is gonna sink first. Rest of us are just pretending to be Jack trying to be the last ones to go.

felipeerias: As someone looking at this from outside the US, the whole sequence of events is frankly terrifying.I fear that frontier AI is going to be nationalised for military purposes, not just in the US but across the globe.At the same time, I really don’t know what Anthropic were expecting when they described their technology as potentially more dangerous than an atom bomb while agreeing to integrate purpose-built models with Palantir to be deployed in high-security networks for classified military tasks.

atmavatar: Complaining loudly about working with the government to build weapons and then continuing to build them isn't the same as people refusing to work for companies that handle weapons contracts. The window has indeed shifted, with tech workers now merely virtue signaling on social media.

nickff: >” I inquired why founders, CEOs or developers weren't in part of the discussion or in attendance? Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.”This seems more like credentialist arrogance than a well-reasoned judgment.

reaperducer: Name checks out.

tombert: I've quit jobs and been laid off from jobs and I will admit that when I do, I always kind of hope that the company goes bankrupt the day after I leave because I was so important. Companies I've quit or been laid off have gone bankrupt, but it took years and sadly I don't think there's any way for me to draw a logical connective of "no tombert -> company fails".I've never quit a company on purely ethical grounds, but I have turned down interviews and offers because of them. They're probably not going to go bankrupt just by not hiring me, but I like to think that making it incrementally harder to find talent slows down their progress of doing evil things, if only a little.That's probably still a delusion of grandeur on my end, but we all should have an ethical line that we won't cross; most of us end up working for monsters and/or assholes, especially at BigCos, so your options generally boil down to "work for an asshole who's doing evil that you can live with" or "go live in a Unabomber shed". I guess it's important to make sure that "the evil thing you can live with here" isn't just any act of evil.

iandanforth: I don't think we won't get AGI if Anthropic were to implode, and frankly, right now, I'd rather have someone say clearly, "They cannot stomach the existence of someone telling them 'No' or adhering to moral principles. Like spoiled children they can't hear the former and are terrified by later because it might expose them to the condemnation they deserve."

bigyabai: That seems overly vindictive. How would your opinion change in a hypothetical world where "AGI" was dependent on Anthropic's survival?

esafak: Thank you for teaching me the term 'imperial boomerang'. You really saw it in the militarization of the police after the Iraq War. Gone are the donut munchers.

gonzalohm: Isn't the point of technology and engineering to find alternatives with the resources that one has?

fadesibert: If you are waiting until undergraduate level to take ethics, it's far too late to matter anyways.Doubly so for "business ethics" classes which became à la mode in the post-Enron era. They attempt to teach fundamental ethics, when at most it should be a very thin layer on top of a well founded internal moral framework and well-accepted ethical standards inculcated from day 1 of kindergarten.Morals are taught 0-9 [0], Ethics perhaps slightly later as it requires more complex thought processes.[0] https://familiesforlife.sg/pages/fflparticle/Young-Children-...

pinnochio: The OpenAI astroturfers jumped on this one. Their only interest is in trying to spin Anthropic as not meaningfully better to dissuade people from switching, not to get people to drop both companies altogether.

bigyabai: ...is Anthropic "meaningfully better" though? They're still fine being a defense contractor, and they lack the tools to enforce the ethics they want to uphold. They seemingly contribute even less to FOSS than OpenAI does (low bar) and split hairs over IP ownership when open models distill their results. Am I supposed to root for them because of their manufactured internet drama?It's very reminiscent of the half-assed security theater that Google and Apple fought over. Neither one of them resisted government coercion in the end, they just took different routes to end up as federal asskissers.

qsera: Yes, but it takes time.Like we have solar now. People talk about how it saves environment. But I think another similar win would be reduction in dependency on oil, and countries won't have to go to war over oil. But it takes time...But it seems what technology gives, technology takes away. Because new technologies comes with its own resource requirements. And the cycle looks like it will go on...

abustamam: That may be true but changing the department's name can only be done with an act of congress, which has not been done yet. Thus, the name is still officially and legally Dept of Defense.Just because a name is more accurate doesn't mean that it's its new name. Otherwise we wouldn't be the United States of America (we are literally not united bc Hawaii and Alaska are not contiguous, and we are figuratively not united because... Well, you know)

fwipsy: Attitude towards war depends on context. In 2007 "war" meant "Iraq" which was extremely unpopular, pointless, and had an imperialist flavor. Today "war" means Gaza, Iran, and Venezuela, but it also means Ukraine and Chinese aggression, possibly ramping up to an invasion of Taiwan. I suspect Amodei and many Anthropic employees are thinking of the latter.

abustamam: > It's harder to seek funding for "war"I'm confused. This seems like a bad change.Regarding Luckey's other statements, I can almost assure you that the administration did not think as much about it as Luckey has. Insecure Pete just thought the title "Secretary of Defense" was too wussy so he wanted to be Secretary of War.Also, I think people mainly have issue with the fact that Trump is just randomly and unilaterally renaming random stuff and demolishing buildings without congressional approval. If he had gone through the correct alleys then maybe people could ignore it. Maybe. We'd probably still have qualms about it, but at least we'd know that our representatives had a say.

esafak: As Tom Lehrer sang:"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.

metalcrow: Yeah, and they still happen even today (there were some recent ones with ICE and Israel), but the companies themselves have still worked in war businesses.

ArchieScrivener: >take your anger out on someone elseWell, aren't you just the sweetest little emotional manipulator? Ethical, for sure. Perhaps, you are angry due to ignorance and react poorly to someone shattering your illusions.

tombert: I find it frustrating that apparently we just gave up on Trump giving up his tax returns, or putting his businesses into a blind trust. This was a big deal in 2016~2019, but I guess the entire world just decided it wasn't worth it.Now we have a president who doesn't even hide his bribes, and instead starts multiple cryptocurrencies and has a publicly traded company in order to optimize the bribery. Maybe this is this "Department of Government Efficiency" thing I keep hearing about; it's never been more efficient to bribe public officials.

endominus: Sure, but it's not reasonable to call it as unpopular domestically as the Vietnam War, which had more than 12 times the casualties, spread over a group that on the whole was unwilling to fight and had to be drafted into the conflict, thereby spreading the pain of lost loved ones throughout society rather than concentrating it heavily into the poorer and less politically powerful social and economic classes. As unpopular as the Iraq war was, the American people's distaste didn't really do much to end it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

jrflowers: That’s reasonable. In the context of the larger discussion here a post up thread’s implication that a graduate in 2007 would be anti-war because of Vietnam is kind of dubious. Public opinion of the war shifted quite a lot in the four years after “Mission Accomplished” and Freedom Fries.

frinxor: Its incredibly simple - they want to get off the supply chain risk list.Its very evident in his statement, he's trying very hard to clarify what that list means for corporations and downstream business with large commercial and strategic companies.Imagine if Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc decided that they don't want to ANY sort of minuscule risk (real or perceived) to their massive public sector business lines (via all their DoD DoJ NHS and other 3 letter agencies, state agencies, city and local municipals etc) - and decide to cancel their enterprise Anthropic licenses - which is a VERY possible scenario.

karmasimida: You should respect the government’s choice. It is elected after all

Forgeties79: Warfighter is a lame term that I’ve only ever heard enlisted/veterans use mockingly. Like “wow look at that warfighter” type comments.

rounce: Sorry for the off-topic but what hardware are you running Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-NVFP4 on? Is it physically local or just self-administered? Thanks in advance.

zarzavat: This is exactly how all other weapons of mass destruction were rationalised."If we develop <terrible weapon> we can save so many lives of our soldiers". It always ends up being used to murder civilians.

arttaboi: To state the obvious, I think when corruption and power in government go unchecked, companies eventually end up facing situations like this. It’s almost like making a deal with the devil.At the beginning, they’re usually doing it for the money — and maybe some level of patriotism. Eventually they find themselves involved in things so ugly that they can’t really stomach it anymore. At the same time, they can’t easily back out either.Then a new CEO comes in and thinks the previous guy was too soft, "He couldn’t handle it, but I can."And the cycle continues.

xdennis: > what if the code you write or autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing?This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West. If the US wasn't so good at producing killing machines in WW2, you wouldn't be here to complain about DARPA ethics.Instead of having engineers develop the most advanced machines for killing (i.e. protecting the West) such people go into producing the most addictive content delivery systems, destroying the brains of minors.

somenameforme: And coincidentally, Ukraine and Taiwan enable the US to establish grips literally right on the doorstep of our two top geopolitical adversaries. Sure is amazing how freedom, democracy, and butterflies happen to always so randomly coincide perfectly with the geopolitical ambitions of the empire.

fluidcruft: What term to you prefer for referring to sailors, pilots, soldiers, etc collectively?

orsenthil: > newspeak name for the DoD.They changed the name and it matches the intention. It is not a newspeak name anymore.

dragonwriter: > They changed the nameNo, they didn't. The name of the department at issue is “the Department of Defense” and of its head the “Secretary of Defense” — these are set in statute (the latter for slightly longer time than the former) and the relevant statutes has not been changed, since the office of the Secretary of Defense was created in 1947 and the Department of Defense was created in 1949. The executive branch has just decided to use a nickname for a government department (which is the historical name for a prior department which was split to form two of what are now the three main direct subordinate elements within that department.)

sirnicolaz: "fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance"I still don't buy this discussion. How exactly do they want to use an llm for autonomous weapons, given it's not even possible to reliably have a piece of code written without having to review it?And how is a 1M token window model suppposed to be useful for mass surveillance?Honest questions, I am sure I am missing some details. Because so far it looks like a very sophisticated marketing strategy.

Forgeties79: Yeah, it’s common alright. Commonly used as a joke by every veteran I’ve ever met to mock try-hards.

helpfulclippy: I am not greatly relieved by this post of Anthropic's. That said, they seem to have lines and are willing to stand by them; I don't see where OpenAI has done that. So, for now and from my point of view, the point goes to Anthropic.Moving my subscription is not terribly consequential, but since the products are so similar and easy to substitute with one another for my uses, it seems best to participate in what in aggregate is a signal that is being noticed and commented on and interpreted to mean that a significant number of people who buy AI access do care about this.

serioussecurity: I've worked as a contractor for a safety system that turned out to be for a foreign military. I was given a signal, and told to write software to fit it. The signal could plausibly be collected for a wide variety of civilian purposes.What I realized later was that none of the civilian markets could possibly justify the cost of the project.The particular type of signal fitting I was doing was only achievable by a few thousand expensive domain experts in the world, so, I think that addresses your other point.

gentleman11: if all the good people leave all the important positions, what will happen?

monksy: It's not just that.There was the 3 laws of robotics, where a robot&#x2F;software was not to do any harm.There was concerns over privacy and refusal of sharing your name and info on the internet. After all it's full of strategers and there was dangerDon't get into cars with strangers

fluidcruft: All of that's irrelevant for what "newspeak" means.

intexpress: It's because they need enormous amounts of money for their datacentersAnd enormous amount of political support because of the negative perception of AI in society

gentleman11: they should rename it to the department of invasions, domestic surveillance, and coups

jltsiren: "Service member" is awkward, because it has too many syllables. People won't use it when shorter alternatives are available. And it's bureaucratic because it's unspecific. It doesn't tell anything the service those people are members of, and it doesn't tell what kind of work they do.

dotancohen: I once saw the word nickel autocorrected incorrectly into something far worse. It was funny given the context (metals, not coins) but I wondered why someone would even have that word in their autocorrect dictionary.

the_duke: Good PR moves.

SilverElfin: The world changed in many ways. America now resembles China or Russia in terms of authoritarianism and oligarchy.See https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47270470> Dean Ball: What Secretary Pete Hegseth announced is a desire to kill Anthropic. It is true that the government has abridged private-property rights before. But it is radical and different to say, brazenly: If you don’t do business on our terms, we will kill you; we will kill your company. I can’t imagine sending a worse signal to the business community. It cuts right at heart at everything that makes us different from China, which roots in this idea that the government can’t just kill you if you say you don’t want to do business with it, literally or figuratively. Though in this case, I’m speaking figuratively.

unethical_ban: We need to [develop military technology] because our enemies do it. I don't mean we have to commit war crimes because others do it.

yellow_postit: I am sympathetic to the argument that I’d rather elected officials that have a path to be removed have the control of use more so than unelected executives.

tdb7893: I went to a military high school up until 2011 and never remember hearing it. My dad and grandpa were military for 20 years each and I've never heard either say it. It definitely hasn't been used broadly in the US for very long (maybe in very specific circles).

dotancohen: Your post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?

wokwokwok: On the other hand, the parent post is entirely correct.What, I ask, is the point of having laws and rules if you can just ignore the ones you don't like?Its just a name, who cares?Not me.…but, if you break the law, you break the law. Not maybe maybe who cares, its not me being water boarded, I dont care…If you break the law. You break the law.Otherwise, who gives a duck what congress says?Just fire them all and crown Trump King of America.I’m being facetious. …but maybe its more of a big deal than you superficially pretend it is.It’s just another case of the administration blatantly breaking the rules.…so, you know. If youre ok with no laws or rules, I guess its fine.Seems a bit chaotic to me. I prefer my governing body to be… marginally bound by some kind of responsibilty to something or someone.

vkou: > I find it frustrating that apparently we just gave up on Trump giving up his tax returns, or putting his businesses into a blind trust. This was a big deal in 2016~2019, but I guess the entire world just decided it wasn't worth it.When you give a guy who started a coup the keys to the kingdom, instead of a life-long prison sentence, arguing over what his taxes were a decade ago is... Splitting hairs.

mulmen: Doesn’t this just lower the bar on going to war? Putting real lives on the line makes war a costly last resort.

dotancohen: > Putting real lives on the line makes war a costly last resort. Be grateful that you live in a culture that feels this way, and protect that culture. Not all cultures share this value.

vkou: The president's club says that we are. Did the house vote for starting it?

jrmg: It has one more syllable than ‘warfighter’, which also doesn’t do any of the things you said.

dotancohen: Why get in the way of America and Israel bashing?These people know the best way to farm karma on social media is to bash Western society, they expect the same on HN.

ashdksnndck: It’s not that big of a coincidence that the countries that superpowers want to conquer, and need defending, are neighbors to the superpowers.

randallsquared: Ender's Game the novel, but I would say that it's not actually super relevant. First, the original short story was 1977, and then Card expanded it into a novel which was published mid-1980s. The point in the story is that kids are sensitive, and supergenius kids more so, and that they don't want to interrupt performance with concerns about guilt. But Real Genius wasn't about that! It was about an anti-war stance born of the Vietnam War and creative-class hatred for Ronald Reagan's presidency.

multiplegeorges: Literally what they wrote: service members.

jonas21: 2007 was 19 years ago. If you step back another 19 years, you'll find that all of the major tech companies of the era had huge defense contracts: IBM, HP, SGI, Texas Instruments, etc. Not only that, many of the technologies that we take for granted today -- like microprocessors, the Internet, even Postgres -- were directly funded by the DoD. And looking back at the history of Silicon Valley, much of its growth in the early days was a direct consequence of military spending.Things come and go. Attitudes change. Who knows where things will be in another 19 years.

hax0ron3: The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character who beat up his boss and gave him the middle finger. Then after 9&#x2F;11 it kinda seemed like suddenly the TV shows were all about cops and soldiers. Admittedly, my memories might be somewhat deceiving me. But I do feel that the mood suddenly shifted, much more than the actual damage done to America by the attack should have justified.

saltyoldman: I think you went off the rails to quickly potentially.He's referring to places like Google or Microsoft having to back out of deals regularly with countries and US agencies after employee backlash.It seems like now days the backlash is indeed smaller and the heads of said companies are willing to move forward anyway.That is a significant change from the past.

skeptic_ai: They are pacifiers. Kills everything until it’s pacified.

arczyx: > How exactly do they want to use an llm for autonomous weaponsProbably the same way Claude can play Pokemon: give it a bunch of informations and let it make a decision by itself to achieve a specified goal.

wewewedxfgdf: The Anthropic CEO&#x2F;team should have learned to just say nothing.Or more importantly - say something that says nothing.When you say nothing to politicians like this then eventually the story moves elsewhere.But these guys had to put a stake in the ground and yell it out loud.In politics you must know when to speak and what to speak and how to speak without speaking.

hax0ron3: And probably some of the same companies where you could get fired for publicly expressing some mildly controversial sociological theories like James Damore did are also companies that would not hesitate to work with the CIA or the Pentagon on mass surveillance or weapons systems.

skeptic_ai: Exactly, it’s all marketing seems to get new customers. And it worked.

komali2: No, you're right, and I distinctly remember the conspiracy theorists and counter culture thinkers immediately circling around "this is going to be used to restrict our freedom." And of course they were absolutely right.I also remember it was the worse possible cultural faux paux to indicate you thought invading foreign nations wasn't a good response to 9&#x2F;11. I mean go look at the votes for invasion of Iraq, damn near 2&#x2F;3 of both the house and Senate in favor. Every radio blaring patriotic songs, every school doing patriotic projects, every brown kid living in hell.It sucked, bad.

regularization: > Chinese aggression, possibly ramping up to an invasion of Taiwan.It's amusing amidst the US bombing Iran, incarceration the president of Venezuela and his wife after slaughtering everyone who was in the room with him, seizing oil tankers off Cuba, continuing the siege of Gaza and on and on to start getting sanctimonious about China.Taiwan is Kinmen island in Xiamen harbor, so a mainland invasion of Taiwan would be mainland China "invading" an island in its harbor.Also mainland China does not recognize Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries. The US does not recognize Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries. Taiwan does not consider Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries. I'm not sure what the invasion would be, a country invading itself? It would be like if the US president sent armed agents to Minnesota who started killing people willy nilly - oh yaa, that just happened.The most satisfying thing is if mainland China did choose to reassert it's rightful authority in Taiwan against the colonial powers, there's absolutely nothing those western powers can do about it. Just like Russia's assertion over the West tring to nove it's NATO armies to its western borders in the Ukraine. It's amusing to see the US flailing about, hitting a Venezuelan here, a Cuban there to try to look tough. I guess Nicaragua is next on the list. The changes coming in the 21st century are welcome. A bozo like Trump as president is a sign of a fading West.

JumpCrisscross: > Also mainland China does not recognize TaiwanBy this logic, America not recognising by the sovereignty of Venezuela, Iran and Cuba—and Israel of Palestine, as well as vice versa—makes everyone an a-okay actor!> if mainland China did choose to reassert it's rightful authority in Taiwan against the colonial powersAn aging dictator invading a democracy. I guess at least Deng chose a quarry he could crush [1].[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...

margalabargala: Actually dinosaurs existed in China before there were people. And their descendents, the birds, are still around. We should all consider it our moral duty to continue what was begun in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and overthrow the CCP and replace them with the true historical rulers, the chicken.

atoav: [delayed]

wyldfire: > the world has changed.It's the effect of a cult of personality. People don't feel like they want or need this. But they're on board with the cult.

jmyeet: Just so we're on the same page, the GP was reeferring to "baby boomers", as in people born 1945-1965. Maybe you know that and that's when you were born. I don't know. But "boomer" has taken on a slang meaning the latest few years for someone who's simply not tech-savvy or is otherwise out-of-touch.Generational politics has definite limits and isn't absolute but it's also true that the Baby Boomer generation as a whole enjoyed the great opportunities and wealth generation opportunities in history. They fled to the suburbs, subsidized by the government every step of the way, and then basically pulled up the ladder behind them. They also refuse to quit.And then when crime receded (and there are multiple theories for why this happened), they moved back into the city, bought up all the real estate and then blocked building affordable housing there too.I personally have a theory that the parting gift of the Baby Boomer generation will be to get rid of Social Security and Medicare since they don't need it anymore.

komali2: > Taiwan does not consider Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries.This is false. Both the government of Taiwan, and the people here, obviously consider the two countries separate, and neither have made any overtures challenging the sovereignty of the CPC in nearly fifty years. Not to mention the fact that the last government to do so has been overthrown in the 90s (the overthrow of the KMT settler colonial dictatorship).You will now vaguely refer to the ROC constitution, but I'll preempt that by saying the constitution makes no claims to PRC territory, full stop. And the constitutional reforms in the 90s explicitly recognize PRC sovereignty over its territory - because Taiwanese people aren't the KMT and want nothing to do with the KMT's now 8 decade old fight.> I'm not sure what the invasion would be, a country invading itself?I know exactly what it would be: tens of thousands of PLA dead at the order of Xi in service of his old man's ego, and economic disaster for both countries, followed up by the most riotously uncontrolled occupied territory in the PRC. Taiwanese people in living memory bled to overthrow a military dictatorship, you think they won't fight to do so again?PRC invasion of Taiwan would be imperialism.

arttaboi: BTW, this deal went south when Anthropic argued that AI systems should never make kill decisions without meaningful human oversight.Source: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2026&#x2F;feb&#x2F;26&#x2F;anthropic-pe...

tedd4u: We deserve to know if Claude was involved with targeting the girls’ school that was bombed in the first hours of the attack on Iran. 50-100+ girls are reported to have been killed.Claude is integrated into Palantir’s Project Maven targeting system. The Pentagon has touted how many more targets they were able to attack with this system (1,000’s).NY Times: Analysis Suggests School Was Hit Amid U.S. Strikes on Iranian Naval Basehttps:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;03&#x2F;05&#x2F;world&#x2F;middleeast&#x2F;iran-sch...

nostromo: Warfighter is not a new term and has been used in the military since at least the 1990s.Service members are anyone serving in the military.Warfighter is used to describe combat roles.

tombert: I at least personally think it's a fight worth fighting for.Well I say that, it's not like I'm doing anything about it outside of complaining on the internet, which is nothing.

airstrike: [delayed]

anon291: Trump admins censorship is just as bad as Bidens. We need an administration that doesn't abuse the power of the government in the free market

mrs6969: Literally yes. If you justify harming others out of nowhere by ‘sabotaging your own existence’ then yes.‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about to ‘not sabotage your own existence’ by simply killing innocent civilians because you believe a computer algorithm told you in about 15 years they or their children might do something harmful.

JumpCrisscross: > Anyone can do anything with this perspectiveNot really. Not unless one is thinking in absolutes, at which point one is by definition an extremist.The rational dialogue that emerges is the proper size of a military for defensive—but not continuous offensive—purposes. I’d guess, for America, that is half its current size at most. (The wrong answers are zero and $1.4tn.)

jadar: Exactly. But, I would add ethics comes from worldview. The idea of teaching some sort of “secular” ethics has never made sense to me … even if you could pull it off it would never stick. Education is meant to make moral people, and that requires transcendent moral principles that come from somewhere outside of us — namely YHWH, our creator. Anything else is merely borrowing from our worldview — which is good as far as it goes but will always fall short.

singron: It's sort of like the opposite of this idea:https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Roger_Fisher_(academic)#Preven...> Fisher [...] suggested implanting the nuclear launch codes in a volunteer. If the President of the United States wanted to activate nuclear weapons, he would be required to kill the volunteer to retrieve the codes.>> [...] The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. [...]>> When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."> — Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981[10]

jmward01: There should be two knives so the volunteer can defend themselves if they don't think starting a war is worth it.

the_af: You're right.And the military in movies used to be depicted as inflexible, stubborn, paranoid, incompetent, and usually either "the bad guys" or authorities that impeded the progress of the main characters. (With exceptions; I'm not forgetting about Top Gun).Then there was a sudden switch, with the military shown with cool gadgets, airplanes, tech, heroics, and generally being glorified. The transition must have happened before the first Transformers, but it was in full swing by then.Were one of a conspiratorial mind, one would guess massive amounts of money were spent in changing this image.

khazhoux: Normally I'd agree with this sentiment, but I'm having a hard time feeling bad we took out the Ayatollah. You know, what with him killing tens of thousands of Iranians who demanded reform. I didn't care one bit for him doing that.

komali2: We're talking about Americans.What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans? Corporate interests don't count.

pinnochio: I don't advocate for using either OpenAI or Anthropic. But you can say one is better while both are still unacceptable.I don't see a viable case for arguing that they're equally bad, though you might quibble over the difference. (I couldn't care less how much these companies contribute to FOSS--that's small potatoes compared to everything else that's going on.)My point is there are a lot of people invested in OpenAI's success who try to steer opinion around here, and they use arguments about ethics (or raise an eyebrow) in bad faith.

komali2: People keep making this strange claim about Taiwan, the only liberal democracy in the East without a single American soldier on its soil.Almost like Taiwan is a sovereign nation uninterested in participating in the PRC and USA's fight for global hegemony.

nostromo: I'm not sure how much more clear warfighter could be. "One who fights wars."Service member is extremely vague. "A member of a service."

tbrownaw: > It doesn't tell anything the service those people are members of, and it doesn't tell what kind of work they do.I'm pretty sure that term could even work for the Pods in some of my Deployments.

sirnicolaz: One thing is playing Pokemon, one thing is decide who to kill. Also: if they are planning to use it on the field, there is going to be a velocity issue. Claude and any other LLM require a non negligible amount of time to ingest the input and spit the output.

mindslight: [delayed]

mckn1ght: You don’t need religion for ethics or worldview. How about: we all appear here on this rock, none of us know why, we’re all in it together, we all struggle, none of us know if we’re alone in this universe or what the universe really is. This unifies us all and puts us on an even playing field. We should be compassionate to one another as we all come from the same circumstance. We can create a concept of god to explain it, or accept that we don’t know for sure and maybe never will. God is a choice, but not the only one.

rokhayakebe: [delayed]

burgreblast: But ma, look at our stonk price!

godelski: Same with Ender's Game. They are playing war games but they're actually real. He sacrifices his units and commits genocide (xenocide) at the same time. Something he probably wouldn't have done had he known. > Nobody has to take ethics during undergrad anymore I guess... My undergrad wasn't in CS but my grad was. I was incredibly surprised to find that ethics isn't a requirement in most CS programs. That's a sharp contrast to traditional engineering and the hard sciences. CS people seem to love philosophy, yet I'm surprised not so much about this subset. We'll spend all day talking about if we live in a simulation (without learning physics) and what intelligence is (without studying neuroscience or psychology) but when it comes to what's acceptable to do at work the answer is always "if I don't do it somebody else will, at least I'll have a job". A phrase that surely everyone hears in an ethics 101 class...

rokhayakebe: [delayed]

sodality2: No conspiracy necessary. The CIA bought the rights to the 1954 film Animal Farm, modified the ending to fit propagandist ends, and it went undiscovered for four decades. The original Top Gun was intended to recover the image of the US Navy after the Vietnam War. Etc etc etc.https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Military%E2%80%93entertainment...

rokhayakebe: Why can't companies&#x2F;governments make weapons that capture autonomously instead of killing in the same fashion?

mindslight: Yes, a point of view without an ethical backbone, at least in the context of Americans. I suppose they could be a Chinese or Russian national considering it ethical to harm the United States, but I don't see a point of drawing that distinction.

qsera: Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true.But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider.The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.

the_af: None of the recently attacked countries posed an imminent threat to the US.In what kind of deranged world are we living that people are fighting against the notion that waging war on another country should be a costly decision!?My, the Overton window has indeed shifted far.

charcircuit: And the legal entity of Google is Google LLC yet most people don't use that name when talking about Google.

the_af: True, but this doesn't in any way undermine the point that making war easier is not a good thing. It should be a costly decision, lest leaders of even those cultures find it too appealing.

godelski: > The idea of teaching some sort of “secular” ethics has never made sense to me … An intro ethics class won't shy away from religion, it comes up a lot. You'll most likely even discuss differences in different sects of Christianity. You should also have the discussion of if morals are universal (and if so, which ones) or are all made up.Secular just means you discuss more than one viewpoint. The idea of teaching morality from only one perspective never made sense to me. You won't even get that limited viewpoint in Seminary school, even though it'll certainly be far more biased

tbrownaw: It's certainly entertaining to read about ancient industry history, with people on DARPA grants objecting to military interest in the stuff the military was paying them to do.

renewiltord: The one industry that people dislike that I haven’t been in is war. I hope to be in weapons one day. The ethics are pretty straightforward to me: kill as few as possible to protect your interests; and that may be many people; but it is not really that many people.Anyway, I won’t guess at your friend’s motivation but if you gave me the ability to make America’s industry better at prosecuting war you’d better believe I’d do it with great enthusiasm.Besides I’ve been around long enough to know that when the rubber hits the road the ethical people will find their way rapidly to the Paradox of Tolerance and suddenly find that violence is highly desirable. I find this kind of high variance behaviour is undesirable and leads to unhappiness all around.

FpUser: >"Russia and China did not have the means to help Venezuela"Of course they have the means. Nothing technical prohibits them from blowing couple of carriers. But the price they would have to pay is way too high.

the_af: Did you mean Venezuela or Iran?Because there are actual technical impediments why neither China nor the Russians could have blown a US carrier in the Caribbean.

charcircuit: Department of War is correct.https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;presidential-actions&#x2F;2025&#x2F;09&#x2F;rest...

rokhayakebe: But a civilian should have the right to participate in defense and not offense without fear of retribution or being humiliated. They are not the only game in town. All the DOW had to do was drop them, pick Openai and support the latter including recommending it to all the nations that listen to the president. That would be good for Openai business.

orsenthil: This is reflection of corruption in the system that you cannot escape. No one is calling out Trump for hos corruption, illegal use of powers and pathetic behavior, killing of people and setting up world war 3. And we call out others. We need to stay strong. If it comes to world war 3, we all lose.

the_af: > the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk.Not so clear cut. Because now sending people to die in distant wars is likely to get a negative reaction at home, this creates some sort of impediment for waging war. Sometimes not enough, but it's not nothing. Sending your boys to die for fuck knows what.If you're just sending AI powered drones, it reduces the threshold for war tremendously, which in my mind is not "the moral choice".All of this assuming AI is as good as humans.

IAmGraydon: What do we think are the chances that the government is attempting to destroy Anthropic’s value so they can buy it for pennies on the dollar?

godelski: > Beavis and Butthead, ... Office Space Mike Judge still does. Serendipitously there's a show called Silicon Valley... I also enjoyed the more recent Common Side Effects. But you even see it in King of the Hill and it's hard to miss in Idiocracy.

creddit: Because optically it makes him look terrible.One of the things that Altman does great is that when he writes he writes as though it will be read by the public every time. It’s why he is able to constantly post his own internal memos&#x2F;posts on twitter. It’s great too because it makes him look “transparent”.

dotancohen: Yes, it is prudent to destroy the nuclear capability of a country that chants "Death to America" before they become an imminent threat.Had the US waited until Iran were an eminent threat and then suffered a nuclear blast in one of her harbours, they would have nothing but "I told you so" to comfort them. Don't let your repulsion of war blind you to the fact that other cultures with different values don't have the same repulsion as you.

godelski: So much so that it's actually the expectation!Country wants to expand its territory? Most likely place to extend to is those in its borders. It's literally the lowest hanging fruit.Small country being invaded by large country? Who are they most likely to turn to? Does it seem that unlikely that they'd go to the biggest actor who doesn't like that country? The enemy of my enemy?Coincidence? I think not! It's literally the most logical thing

dotancohen: Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.

slantedview: Let's not imply the world changed on its own. Trump changed it.

foobiekr: In 2000 I worked for a company that was building a mobile telephony and data product. The partner company asked us to help them implement the lawful intercept function, as is required by law, which we did, however they were asking for 5+% LI traffic when the common practice was 2-ish%. Our hardware was exceptional, we could trivially have done 100% at line rate with zero impact. The engineers all stepped aside, and finally: "Fuck those guys. They get their 2%."It's one of the better ethical moments I've had in my career of working for _mostly_ very ethical companies (so obviously not any social media or crypto).

CamelCaseCondo: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Military%E2%80%93entertainment...

donkyrf: The late 90s were also a time of Law & Order, The West Wing, Apollo 13, and Saving Private Ryan.And today is a time of Andor and Succession....

pbh101: This exhibits the borrowing GP mentions: your ‘should’ does not necessarily follow from the stated priors. Why is compassion morally mandated by the priors and not competition, for example?

arttaboi: Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting.Watching this, I realised one thing: Germans, once upon a time phenomenally intelligent folks, got eroded by a bunch of stupid politicians’ ambitions.

wzm: > I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee.> I have also told them not to work for companies which make massacre machinery, and to express contempt for people who think we need machinery like that.

FpUser: >"actual technical impediments"I do not believe so. Not unsurmountable at least. The consequences are however far from pleasant for each side

godelski: I think the funniest part is the fact that all the western countries are even afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence. It's a much better argument to say Korea or Japan are ruled by the US (and Korea and Japan absolutely hate one another!).Does the US have influence in Taiwan? Certainly! But if that meant Taiwan was the US's puppet then Taiwan would simultaneously be China's puppet. Schrödinger's Vassal

tachyons: - Companies need to please Trump exist - CEOs can no longer speak on issues which might hurt the go of president - Freedom of expression is limited to freedom to support TrumpTrump is the communist nobody warn you about :-D

paulhebert: Most of America's recent wars have been unjustified.I think it's very reasonable to not want your products or work going towards making it easier for the US military wage unjustified wars.I also think it would be reasonable to change your stance on that if America entered a war that you felt was justified.(For example, I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.)Saying the military can't use your tool _today_ doesn't prevent you from changing your mind _tomorrow._

queenkjuul: Hear, hear

yoyohello13: All of our current leaders as using God to justify their terrible actions. So religion doesn’t seem to be very good at teaching morals either.

jedberg: Gen-X was making the popular new art at the time. It was a strong reflection of the feelings of our generation. We were (maybe still are?) known for not liking authority.

llmthrow0827: Yes, the equivocal wording means nothing. It's clear that Anthropic has no moral qualms about participating in war crimes, since that's been America's MO since forever. America has provided free weapons to Israel to continue their slaughter in Gaza and has now joint forces with the same to assassinate leaders under the auspices of peace talks, and kill schoolchildren and other civilians as part of a terror campaign.

jadar: Either god is me (secularism) or god is something outside me (Christianity). One is going to be better than the other. It matters which one. Everyone has an answer, and it affects your morals. Whether or not you are consistent brings you back to that same question: “who says?”

porcoda: Not really a new term: “warfighter” always has made me cringe but it’s been commonplace in defense contractor pitches to DoD for many years. Basically, if you hear it being used you’re likely in the presence of someone who does (or did) DoD work. Totally unsurprising to see it here given this is a DoD contracting argument that we’re all watching from the sidelines.

keiferski: Many prominent tech and science leaders have been disparaging philosophy for decades now. Not surprising that in the absence of any serious ethical thought, “make money = good” is the default position.

fooker: > my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for warHoly mother of bubbles. No, for several decades it was a common thing for the L3 Harris, Lockheed Martin, etc to scoop up half the geeks from most graduating classes.

stack_framer: Under Secretary of War Emil Michael posted that there is no active negotiation with Anthropic:https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;USWREMichael&#x2F;status&#x2F;2029754965778907493

meroes: Just rewatched Buffalo Soldiers with Joaquin Phoenix. Really don't think that movie could be made today.

jadar: > Secular just means you discuss more than one viewpoint.Secular is simply the viewpoint that claims to equalize all viewpoints while at the same time discounting them all in favor of its own … and then stealing the good parts of my viewpoint. :) It means you can bring your priors into the classroom but I can’t. At least in a good seminary they are honest about priors and articulate why their viewpoint is different &#x2F; better than others. Ethics is and always has been applied theology, answering the question “what do we do?” You can’t answer that question honestly or fully without answering the prior question.

orsenthil: At this moment, I think we should have politics in left, right and center of our workplaces and life discussions everywhere. If you are not explicit with your stance then you are going to dragged along without your choice.

dotancohen: > afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence. Does Taiwan claim independence?I thought that both the government in Beijing and the government in Taipei both claim that all of China is united, and that they are the legitimate government of that united entity.

queenkjuul: Growing up, "the service" was synonymous with "the military" among my grandparents who, y'know, fought in WWII

DANmode: So, no conspiracy theory necessary.

mckn1ght: It’s at least an option for consideration. I shouldn’t have spoken normatively.Is your position that compassion is only possible via religion?

dotancohen: > I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it. Enlisting after your country had already been invaded is too late. An ancient proverb reminds us that if you want peace, prepare for war.

systoll: > I'm confused. This seems like a bad change.It’s a good change in that it discourages unwarranted funding. Bad for the DoD’s budget, good for the country.It’s analogous to why `React.__SECRET_INTERNALS_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED` is a pretty good name.(But even if it's a decent name in isolation, it isn't actually the name of the department, and using it is a tacit submission to the power of the executive over congress. So… bad overall.)

Ylpertnodi: People don't like to be captured and tend to run away.

milemi: Do you run?Only when I’m being chased.

dotancohen: > War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral. This is the right answer. When war becomes inevitable, we are forced to choose between morality and survival. I pass no judgement on those who choose survival.

XorNot: They knew the US was at war and they knew it was a government program for military purposes and they knew they were dealing nuclear materials.A journalist not involved at all figured it out just fine, but at the very least it's not like it wasn't going to be a weapon.Frankly though I wonder what the various judgemental people in these comments think about say, the tens of thousands of people who at the time were just straight up making artillery ammo.

thomassmith65: The idea in this and the parent comment has it spectacularly wrong.What is different today is that the counter-culture won, but their attitude, which the comments glorify, is lazy and juvenile.Trump is president because of 'antiauthoritarian' types like the kids I hung out with back in high-school. Somehow they never matured mentally. And it turns out they had no clue what they were talking about.Johnny Rotten is a closet Trump supporter now. I saw a social media post by the singer from Deee-lite complaining about 'the globalists'. Then there's Kanye West.There just are very few serious people who think for themselves and who have scruples. Hannah Arendt probably said it better than I can.

MagicMoonlight: So what is your solution? Let the Chinese and the Russians kill us?Strangely these ethical discussions and attempts to suppress technology only occur in the west, and only when funded by our adversaries.

raldi: "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

moomoo11: always funny af to see all the loser (just because you went to MIT and raised XXX billion doesn't mean you aren't a loser) dorks and nerds who probably thought "the Empire were the good guys" finally get placed in the action seat as they help build the Death Starthankfully, the giga Chads always win against the incel dorks and nerds in the end

energy123: China likely cannot win because it doesn't control the Middle East or the oil corridors from the Middle East to China (see: Malacca Dilemma).China's airforce is also significantly behind the US airforce in both numbers and capability. For example they have no answer to B2 bombers.China has far better peacetime industrial production, but again, because they have no answer to B2 bombers, it counts for nothing. The factories will get deleted within 1-2 months.It would be a bloody war and the US would take significant losses, but it's mainly down to US political will than capability.And even though China probably can't win, it doesn't mean they don't see it different and won't try. Autocracies are known for launching unwinnable wars due to bad decision making.

DANmode: The release date of the show 24 is fun.

XorNot: Taiwan buys military equipment and operates it's own military very much like it is independent of China and views Chinese troops in it's territory as a threat.

hereme888: That's just patently false. Tons of executives and board members in industry absolutely care. Some are in it just for philanthropic purposes.

nytesky: Reality Bites captures the zeitgeist well.I think the money craze that came with dot.com, War on Terror spending, housing bubble, really flipped people into money at all costs.

XorNot: The inability to accurately cite any story about this, and the "friend of a friend" structure is what implies it's garbage.Not to mention it itself requires a conspiracy theory: "no one would do this work voluntarily" (or "all the smart people have to be tricked because they're so smart they obviously agree with me").As though people don't just go and work at Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

yoyohello13: I understand the argument, but the number of reprehensible Christians (or other flavor of religion) out in the world doesn’t seem to back up the claim that viewing God outside oneself leads to better moral results.

abustamam: Maybe, but the comment I was replying to wasn't talking about newspeak.

saulapremium: I will bet that before the election, you were one of the many shouting that voting for Kamala would mean war with Iran.It's pretty wild to observe you all getting firmware updates in real time. At least it proves, once and for all, that any attempt at reasoning is futile.

HerbManic: Everytime I hear 'Department of War', it just saddens me. Warfighter is the same."When the way prevails in the empire, fleet-footed horses are relegated to ploughing the fields; when the way does not prevail in the empire, war-horses breed on the border." Tao Te Ching chapter 46.

scotty79: > who says?Only people can say things. And following people that start by lying that they have unique and superior insight into what things ought to be is not a good strategy. Secular is just saying, we are all in this together as equals, let's figure things out, here's what we got thus far.

fzeroracer: Where are they? The vast majority of executive and board members are kissing every inch of this administration's ass.

YZF: You're arguing semantics. The west refuses to recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China and refuses to recognize it as an independent country.Whatever they claim, the west (and most of the world) due to Chinese leverage&#x2F;power refuses to recognize.Taiwan meets all the criteria for being a state. It controls land, population, it has a military, it has a government, currency, passports etc. etc. It's a de-facto country&#x2F;state.

godelski: You literally described independence.You're confusing land with governance.

laserlight: I don't know of any instance where modern warmongers fight wars based on subjective grounds. They all have “objectively true” reasons.

xvector: To be fair, common law and the current system are totally fucking dumb. Everyone that has come up with it and perpetuates it should be ashamed of themselves.

falcor84: Except for extreme periods in history (that I hope we can avoid), most service members don't end up directly participating in a war.

iJohnDoe: I was actually very impressed with their post. It’s a work of art for how carefully it was worded.My takeaway is that they are bending a knee to smooth things over. It’s business and it’s human behavior. They are actually furious and would love to tell Trump to crawl up his own ass, but that doesn’t help anyone in the long run. It’s in everyone’s best interest to get back to work and hope for the best tomorrow. It’s the adult thing to do. However, it's exactly why humanity is the shitshow it is right now. One side is trying to keep the world going by adulting while the other side keeps acting like complete fucking idiots.

YZF: Palestine is only a state due to international recognition. It meets no definition of a state, it controls no land, has no currency, government, military, etc. It meets no criteria for statehood yet is recognized by most of the world as a state. Taiwan (and e.g. Somaliland) meet all the criteria for statehood and yet are not recognized as states. Venezuela, Iran and Cuba meet the criteria for statehood and ofcourse are actually recognized universally as states. State (pun intended) of the world.I would like to believe there's no chance Xi would invade Taiwan but I also didn't think Putin would invade Ukraine. Those leaders are full of themselves. If we learnt much over the last few years is that anything can happen. China has both declared the intention and built the capabilities to invade Taiwan. As the saying goes if a loaded rifle is introduced in the first act of a play, it must be fired by the final act.

abustamam: Oh good, I've always had respect for soldiers, but never the govt. I'm glad to hear that soldiers are not buying into this name BS.Edit: not sure if you're talking about the term warfighters or dept of war. Either way, warfighters just sounds silly, regardless of how long its been in use, and dept of war also sounds silly. It's like what my 5 year old nephew would call his fictitious military agency.

scotty79: > he was speaking how he truly feltPeople can speak how they truly feel and then regret the tone with zero cynicism.

miohtama: When I graduated, companies had mottos like Don't do evil.

danielbarla: I don't see this as a binary thing. Legally we tend to draw a clear line between child and adult for pragmatic purposes, but I don't think my responsibility of intent disappears just because someone hits a magical number. I have steered clear of various gambling &#x2F; "gaming" jobs which have had silly high salaries as a result; I don't in any way want to participate in things which are meant to play the weak points of the human psyche like a harp, for profit.

leptons: We'd already be at war with China if the US tried to insert a military base there.

MagicMoonlight: No it doesn’t, it sounds like newspeak.

scotty79: Departament of defense sounds like a newspeak for a country that was not in any danger of being invaded for a century or more and all the wars abroad it participated in, it entered pretty much by choice. Department of war is way more accurate.

tovej: I have to strongly disagree.I've met people who have never been in touch with organized religion. They generally have excellent ethical frameworks. I've also read the bible, it does not have a consistent moral or ethical framework.How can it be that areligious people have ethics if they need god for ethics?Ethics is all about being human, it does not require a god, and it does not require anyone to understand even what a human is, or what process led to us living life together. The subjective experience of life and the subjective experience of life in a society is all you need to develop ethics.

nyargh: I would say to you who would equivocate and dither about lending your skills to a morally and ethically compromised war machine in exchange for a fat paycheck, the same thing that I teach my children:"Everything and I mean everything can be taken from you except your integrity, only you can give that up"

kortilla: Defense doesn’t pay better than regular tech. The people in defense are doing it because they believe in helping the govt.

shevy-java: Everyone knows that the companies have to comply, so a company trying to convince the public that they can choose to not comply, is just telling a lie. I don't understand why Anthropic tries damage control here. Why not just admit that all the data given to them, is also used for war-purposes? We currently see the build-up of a much larger warfare. These things are inter-connected. Even more so when some of it is done for politics (e. g. re-election or simple election "boosters"; reminds me of the old movie Manufacturing Consent or the follow-up "brother" Wag the dog).

fasterik: Private companies do not have to comply with anything they haven't agreed to in a contract. There is nothing legally forcing them to do business with the DoD or to accept specific terms of a contract, short of the government forcibly nationalizing them.

paulddraper: > My, the world has changed.Revisionist history.When you graduated in 2007, the leading tech companies were Microsoft, Google, IBM, Cisco, Apple, Intel, HP, Oracle, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments.How many refused DoD application of their products?I only recall one -- Google. (And it actually first agreed to Project Maven before later backing out.)

kortilla: > Moderator responded that they couldn't find them qualified enough to take part in the discussion.With a gate keeping attitude like that, are you really surprised engineers don’t want to participate?

kortilla: You still take ethics. The only difference is political views. It’s very easy to be consistent from an ethical perspective if you are convinced of a government’s particular powers.The government has a monopoly on violence. Whether you want to enhance it or not all comes down to your political alignment, not ethics.

KingMob: I think you've had enough internet for today

dismalaf: > afraid to recognize Taiwan's independenceNo one is afraid. Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China.

godelski: > No one is afraid. You seem to have trouble reading. Here's a map that shows countries that recognize Taiwan's independence[0]. That's a lot of gray... > Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China. You seem very confused... but I get it, it is confusingMainland China's current government is called the "People's Republic of China" (PRC)[1]Taiwan calls itself the "Republic of China" (RoC)[2]The difference of one word is very important. It's easy to miss, which is why Taiwan even changed its passport[3]... over a decade ago.But also... they issue different passports. They have different governments. Really, this is not hard to understand that Taiwan considers themselves independent and the PRC considers the RoC a bunch of rebels. And... what do rebels typically do?[0] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;International_recognition_of_T...[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Proclamation_of_the_People%27s...[2] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Taiwan[3] http:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;2&#x2F;hi&#x2F;asia-pacific&#x2F;1758230.stm

nyargh: I would argue those at OpenAI or Anthropic are making considerably more than just "regular tech"

pjmlp: As Gen-Xer I fully agree, I don't get the way things are with obedience, the rediculous situation that American families can lose their kids by having them playing alone in the garden, how everyone sells out for money (Punk would not happen today), the always smile and say no negatives at work being rediculous false (this one really drives me crazy),....

seanmcdirmid: China looks like the good guy now, but if Xi decided to “reassert control” over Taiwan, it would quickly become an international pariah and everyone would forget about Trump immediately, the country would immediately be isolated from everyone other than their closest (geographically speaking) allies. Is China ready to do that? Not today, maybe in a decade or two (when they’ve replaced the USA as the top economic&#x2F;military power, there won’t be severe consequences). Xi is smart enough to wait, taking Taiwan now wins them nothing and loses them everything.

lkey: Oh? Name them, with receipts for actions taken, not vague gestures towards morality.The actual logical end point of most of the 'for the good of humanity' folks in the bay area is:'Only I can be trusted with the money, power, and weapons that I believe will break the world, but I promise it is for the best. No system or power should hold me to account in the event I am wrong or change my mind. Trust me.'

paulddraper: > if mainland China did choose to reassert it's rightful authority in TaiwanWait...you mean China doesn't currently have authority in Taiwan?How could that be??

josefrichter: Is it really officially called "Department of War" now?

lkey: The purpose of the system is what it does. The US keeps destabilizing countries, funding genocides, and indirectly killing millions upon millions. This has been the 'bipartisan' consensus of our 'elite' class since the beginning.Look at the votes taken today if you need a refresher.No one wants the middle way of 'capture' that hypothetically exists between peaceful cooperation and wars of domination, so it will not exist. You should consider, in this moment, if you stand for imperial aggression, or against it, as there is no third way.

padjo: This isn't really the moral dilemma you make it out to be.

toyg: You have to recognize that boomers, with all their faults, took military action seriously. And Silicon Valley looked up to the likes of John Perry Barlow and 60s counterculture.Their kids don't give a shit.

lukan: But he did know he was going to work for the military."I’d be joining a contracting company for the Department of Defense."(But interesting article otherwise)

endofreach: To be fair, the name of that Department used to be very confusing...

kortilla: Being blanket against CBP is a position without an ethical backbone. It’s just a childish burying head in the sand. Every semi stable country enforces its immigration laws and checks passports of visitors. Claiming the US doing so is somehow unethical is completely misaligned with a sustainable welfare and government services system.

pjmlp: That justification is so rediculous for anyone that can think, like which side should He take?

lambertsimnel: > stealing the good parts of my viewpoint. :)Agreeing with those parts of your viewpoint, in other words

vrganj: The last time the Chinese started a war of aggression was in 1979.The last time the US did was a week ago.

lukan: I think right now US warships are rather close to China than the other way around, so in china they can say, see, they are close to us, we need weapons and military training already in schools.This is not about self defence, it is about dominance and raw power.

dhosek: And yet Gen X is the demographic that fell hardest for Trump.

swed420: Good cop&#x2F;bad cop has proven very effective at manufacturing consent. The two political parties of capital interests have it down to a science. This is just the AI iteration playing out.

lukan: "But what is the option?"Don't see money as the only goal?Otherwise it ain't black and white.There are forms of advertisment that are not so bad and there is a need for kill devices since there are lots of other existing kill devices. But this ad technology and this actual war ministry who take pride in revoking all "woke shit" like "rules of engagement" - I would not work for. There is other work, even if it pays less, but money ain't everything.

insane_dreamer: It's a sad reflection on how low our country has fallen that the one tech company that tries to hold to some value -- nothing outstanding, just something very basic -- not only gets branded a "risk" but has to virtually grovel as Amodei does here.

pu_pe: Do you seriously believe that your only alternative is to work building ads or weapons?

mindslight: The problem is not the roles, but how those roles are carried out and the complete lack of accountability. It's difficult for citizens to believe that government agencies are noble endeavors when we see ever-creeping anti-Constitutional scope, and rampant unpunished criminality among their members. It would be fantastic if this weren't the case, of course. Unfortunately the only check mechanic we the People seem to have is to consider them hostile entities best avoided until they're drastically reformed.

tpoacher: I don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly as I remember things back in the Iraq war. With us or against us and all that.

tedd4u: Reuters now reporting "U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children"https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;middle-east&#x2F;us-investigation-p...

jimbob45: And nobody else because the geniuses at Reuters thought it was a good idea to make it an exclusive. Also paywalled.

tpoacher: Anthropic is the new Dixie Chicks.

pu_pe: Despite being arguably the leading frontier AI lab at the moment, Anthropic is punished for not following orders. Pete Hegseth now has the power to determine the economic policy of the US when it comes to AI. The US is becoming a state-planned economy in the worst possible way.

adrian_b: The problem in modern wars is that those who start them claim that they do this for survival, but the claim is not based on any real action of the adversary or on any evidence that the adversary is dangerous, but on beliefs that the adversary might want to endanger the survival of the attacker some time in an indefinite future, and perhaps might even be able to do that.Nobody who starts a war today acknowledges that they do this for other reasons than "survival", e.g. for stealing various kinds of resources from the attacked.It has become difficult to distinguish those who truly fight for survival from those who only claim to do this.

mrdevlar: Because there aren't any actual good guys in this story. There is one group that is taking short term gains, and another group that feels rejecting this will lead to long term gains. Neither one of them gives any shits about the use of their technology in to kill people. They just are interested in their companies turning a profit.Both of these companies have heavy PR teams that they use to convince you that they do, in fact, care about these issues. But that is PR and generally to be considered bullshit. They care about nothing other than their bottom lines.This has been a wonderous PR move by Anthropic. It gets to make money off the US war machine while somehow being able to portray themselves as the "good guys" in the story leading to that whole #cancelOpenAI trend. If you're dumb enough to believe that Anthropic is really the "good guy" in this story, I have some meme coin to sell you.

Perseids: > But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent)I was with you up to this point, but when you say "life is to hard to stay moral" I am thinking about how buying the wrong shampoo contributes to micro plastic in the ocean, or how buying a fitting jeans that is not exploiting labor is an extremely time intensive endeavor, or how avocados may be vegan but often produced unsustainable. Basically I thought you were making this point from The Good Place https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Lci6P1-jMV8 .But when you are working in IT, an industry that is generally still very well of, avoiding an employer that is actively making the world a worse place, is a low bar to cross. It's just one decision every few years, which also is comparatively easy to research (you are probably doing it as your normal preparation for the job interview anyway) and the impact of that decision is enormous in comparison to most other decisions you make, so it's well worth it to ponder a bit.

somenameforme: "Need" defending? I couldn't care less who rules Ukraine, Taiwan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, and these countless other places half-way around the world. Anyhow it's not like China taking over Taiwan will have any impact on semiconductors. They're happy to play merchant to the world, independent of alliances. E.g. - Ukraine complains about China supplying Russia with tech for their drones, while failing to recognize the countless "Made in China" stamps on their own hardware.When despots act subservient to the US we're more than fine being BFF with them. See: Saudi Arabia. Heck we're even aiding them in their little 'special military operation' in Yemen. So funny how the rhetoric changes depending on who's involved: "On 26 March 2015, Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition of nine countries from West Asia and North Africa, staged a military intervention in Yemen at the request of Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who had been ousted from the capital, Sanaa, in September 2014 by Houthi insurgents during the Yemeni civil war." [1]So a president is overthrown by a popular insurrection, and then another country which was fond of the old government decides to take advantage of the situation to invade, primarily to further their own ends. This sounds oddly familiar, yet somehow the rhetoric around it is entirely different. Nah, I'm tired of this nonsense. If a country literally invades another country which we have a military alliance with then yeah - we have an obligation to intervene. But without that - I can think of a far ways to spend trillions of dollars than killing people half-way around the world.[1] - https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_...

Maxious: We can use the word war because Iran used the word war. But it is not a War in the constitutional sense. Or something.

nerdsniper: Trump also says it's war. Different parts of US government leadership are arguing opposite tacks. That said, it's clearly intended to create an existential threat to Iran, so it's plainly obvious that the USA started an actual war.

snozolli: My pet theory is that NYPD Blue and 24 paved the way in the American public mind for authoritarianism via the "good guys bending the rules and using violence because they know this guy did it" theme.

pjmlp: Was it? I am not on US.If anything it is all about boomers, gen z and rednecks on YT and TikTok when going over MAGA and Project 2025 videos.As far as I am aware, the people that didn't gave a damm to elections and ignored their right to vote, are the main reason.

bloodyplonker22: The most unethical people I know have taken ethics classes and signal that they did it.

godelski: > It means you can bring your priors into the classroom but I can’t. I've heard about this from Fox News but I've never experienced it myself, even having grown up in a very blue state. I'm sure this happens somewhere, but I'm unconvinced it is the norm. > Ethics is and always has been applied theology This is trivial to prove false. You even do it! "What do we do?" You've implicitly added "if god exists". You're so strong in that conviction you claim there's a former question and yet never wrote one down. I'd even argue it is important for theologists to ask "What do we do if god doesn't exist?"You seem to be under the belief that without god there are no moral convictions. Well I'll quote a very famous conman, as I feel the same as him. The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what's to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn't have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. - Penn Jillette You can even find in the Bible plenty of passages to support his point. If the only thing stopping you from doing evil is the belief of punishment, then you are not a good person. Conversely, if the only reason you are doing good is because you are seeking eternal reward, neither are you good. One does not need god to have morals, one only needs have society and a theory of mind.Hey look, we did Secular Ethics, and discussed religion! I disagreed with you, but you'll notice I never made claims about if I believe in god or not. You'll notice I make no judgement on you for believing in god. You'll notice, my entire argument is based on the origin of morals and really we've discussed is what is in a man's heart matters. This is no different than "Is an act of kindness good if one films themselves doing it?" There's a lot of gray in that question, obviously.No ethics class is going to exclude you for being religious, as that would be unethical.

WalterBright: Under a free market system, making money requires providing others with what they want. Such a system has produced the highest standard of living in history.What's unethical about that?

noosphr: >We - as a humanity - collectively recognized the weight of our creation, and decided to walk backWe ran out of bombs actually. If there had been more bombs there would have been more bombings.

digitalPhonix: I was unaware that the secretary of defence was a combat role?He (and his allies) have referred to him as "warfighter": https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.radiofree.org&#x2F;2025&#x2F;04&#x2F;23&#x2F;look-ma-im-a-warfighter...

delaminator: Students are idealistic. The real world has a habit of blunting that.

keiferski: Sometimes I really don’t know how to reply to comments like these. Because they either seem to completely misunderstand the basic premise of my comment, or they deliberately focus on some tangential thing in order to make some trollish point. But I’ll reply here, and just assume my comment was somehow unclear.Do you genuinely think that putting money above any other value is an ethical way to operate in the world? I certainly don’t, virtually no ethical theory does, and the vast majority of people don’t either.This is not saying that making money is inherently a bad thing, but that placing it above every other value without question is definitely a bad thing, or at least a careless and thoughtless one.I suppose there are some people out there who seriously have studied ethics and think making money is the ultimate good. It doesn’t seem like a serious position to me.But I don’t think that’s become the default position because of serious analysis, but rather the total lack of it. Which is what my comment was about: when you refuse to engage in serious philosophical thought about something, you’re just going to revert to base values like the acquisition of money and power, or some variant of that which your local system is optimizing for.

carlob: > 'war'> anytime a person in power feels like assassinating a leader or taking out a dissidentI don't really see much of a difference nowadays

WalterBright: > classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for warI don't want to be stuck with horses when the enemy is invading with tanks.

WalterBright: Most of the pranks in Real Genius were actual pranks done at Caltech in the 1970s. The McDonald's prank, for example.I don't recall Caltech having any ethics classes. Caltech did have an honor system, however, which was surprisingly effective.

qsera: Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is not x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to proceed? "What would your response be? What is the value of `x` at which you will approve of the pre-emptive attack?Just curious.

WalterBright: > Do you genuinely think that putting money above any other value is an ethical way to operate in the world?I don't see how that follows from what I wrote.

keiferski: Then I don’t understand the point of your initial comment or what you’re trying to say.

torginus: This feels like the time when 2 people in my friend group broke up, and both they kept writing me essays to explain why they were the ones in the right, sharing incredibly intimate details about who is in the right hoping I would act as some sort of fair mediator and judge.

pazimzadeh: Gotcha, I haven't actually seen the movie I just meant the concept of tricking and silo'ing genius kids to make them think they are playing a game when they're actually doing war&#x2F;genocide is similar to the Ender's Game book. I don't know if this was just an idea floating around in the air or if it was inspired by Ender's Game, just interesting

7952: And the world seen through media is heavily abstracted. And I think that makes people psychologically treat war like a game rather than something actually happening. We trick ourselves into believing it isn't real.

moogly: > My, the world has changed.Has it though? I'd say it's morphed, not changed. This is still, underneath it all, Hanseatic League and East India Company domination style colonialism, but adapted to and shaped by the digital age.The US has pretty much all throughout its history had its military-industrial complex and warfare as an economic motor too, and in view of this, it's inevitable that software gets integrated.Israel, the most recent settler-colonial state (of course some people try to claim it's not using various mental gymnastics, but I'm not fooled), was the experiment and has become a model for how to intermingle the industrial-military complex with society to the degree they two become indistinguishable, and with backing of the West it's been a very profitable and, I hate to say it, successful model.Here's[1] a review of a book about the subject, talking about the state incubating start-ups and spawning a tech sector for the sole purpose of warmongering.[1]: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theconversation.com&#x2F;the-harvard-of-anti-terrorism-ho...

srean: Bible is quite permissive of killing if it's in the name of god. Genocide is quite a recurring theme.

srean: Yes exactly.Golden rule does not need the existence of any god.There are godless religions too that have strong ethical traditions. They are not religions in the Abrahamic sense.

asdff: To be fair, it wasn't like lockheed and raytheon and all the rest of the modern human killing machine companies have ever been hurting for engineering talent. Likewise for oil and gas.

NoOn3: You cannot rely on a closed source "AI" in someone else's cloud for your work. After all, it can be disabled for you at any time. "AI" can easily steal all your technological secrets. At the request of the owner, "AI" can easily mislead you and insert backdoors into your products. "AI" can even easily incorrectly answer some questions specifically for you if the owner of "AI" wants to remove your competition. And you may not even understand it.

krige: That's a really weird claim about Ukraine, which the US leadership would love to sweep under the rug, leave alone to be taken apart, except for the bad optics - so they just drag their feet forever.

cousin_it: That's so idealistic. We really should know by now the reality of power and what kind of people end up in power. Anyone who could climb all the way to the top would have no problem killing the volunteer, and would smile on TV the same day.

Alan_Writer: This happened throughout history, not just now. Religion is used as an instrument, but does not necessarily reflect the underlying meaning.There's only hunger for power. Man's essence.

GJim: > I couldn't care less who rules Ukraine, Taiwan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, IranOh you will. You most certainly will.

discreteevent: Be careful with this "they are all the same" logic. As an empire, I would rather have the WWII to 2016 USA than the current one and the current one to Russia.

iammjm: Please lets also not forget computer games. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, oh what a glorious thing to be an american soldier...

Alan_Writer: Even God told Abraham to kill his own son. Like, really?

moogly: You're quite right that there are degrees in hell.

mastermage: i am truly rethinking my Anthropic Subscription currently.

pawkaman84: He was trying to say that "making money in a free-market" is fundamentally linked to creating value for someone. It wasn't the 'money' word that you should have focused on, but the 'value'.On average this way of creating value bottoms-up has undoubtedly produced the largest human flourishing in the history of our species. It has unlocked human creativity and has lifted millions of people from poverty. It is the best system we have been yet able to create. If you disagree - point me to an alternative (even if theoretical).Of course, as in the case of averages, there is variance. Sure, greed, illegal money making is bad, but the total net benefit is overwhelmingly positive.I think your blind spot is that you implicitly attribute no ethical value to 'money making'. For you they're disconnected. In fact, it's the oppositve - there is a lot of ethics in money making.

etchalon: Literally the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

alex43578: Do you think a continuation of the firebombing campaign and an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in fewer deaths of civilians (particularly of the 'volunteer fighting corps')?That's to say nothing of the deaths in a potential US&#x2F;USSR conflict that goes hot without the Damocles Sword of MAD...

keiferski: Here’s what I don’t get, and why these comments irritate me. They are just opportunities for someone to inject their ideological arguments about something that has little to do with the actual comment.I didn’t say anything about capitalism being a bad system, nor did I say making money is inherently bad.I said in the absence of ethical study, making money is treated as a default good. It seems pretty obvious to me that it isn’t a default good.I’m completely uninterested in arguing about whether the profit motive has led to good societal outcomes, because a) in general I agree with that and b) it has literally nothing to do with my comment.My original comment was just lamenting that tech leaders don’t study ethics, and therefore they just default to thinking that making money is always a good thing, no matter the consequences, no matter what values get ignored. In many situations, making money does indeed lead to good ethical situations. But my comment is about them not even bothering to ask that question in the first place. That’s all.

throwaway132448: Just be mindful that you filled in the gaps between the lines with what you wanted to read, not necessarily what's true.

awesomeMilou: But they are?And it's a fallacy to assume that critical thinking is something that you're born with. In addition to the media landscape being completely ingrained into society. I can't really escape recommender engines anymore when consuming media.If your exposure to media is curated since you were born, how are you going to tell if you're being deceived? It's pretty much the allegory of the cave.

throwaway132448: Amodei, Altman, and the many that have gone before them: I'm just so bored of these god complexes. They are all the same.

refurb: It’s like cheating on a spouse, it’s not much of a claim to say “id never cheat” when there are zero opportunities to do so.Same with the claims from companies like Google - “dont be evil”. Easy to say when there is nothing on the line.But when the choice is between your claimed morals and the future success of your company, those morals disappear in a hurry. But they were never strongly held in the first place.

Shank: I used to work in defense, and this is not true either. People work in defense because it is effectively a job where you can never lose your job except for absolute gross misconduct, have a hard-cap of 40 hours a week &#x2F; 80 hours a pay cycle (commonly leads to people working "9&#x2F;80 schedules" and taking every other friday off), and generally speaking you have a lot of chances to move around org charts when programs change. A "cushy" job with very low chance of being fired with a stable paycheck is valuable to a lot of people.There are also missions people find valuable, like SBIRS ground, where theoretically real lives are being protected. I know a lot of people who enjoy finding meaning in their work, and there are many programs that bring that level of satisfaction (again, look at things like SBIRS ground).

jiggawatts: > "no one would do this work voluntarily"The much more common reason is compartmentalisation. Employees are told as much as they need to know, no more.If someone can design a glide bomb without knowing that it has an explosive payload, then they're not told.The fear is not so much the employees themselves (they might be quite patriotic!) but that the information will leak out to the enemy, giving them a chance to counter the weapon or copy it.

dpacmittal: It feels extremely dystopian that a country has a department dedicated for war.

refurb: Your opinion seems to suggest that unless someone has the same moral view as you they must not have any morals at all?What if their morals are “I am not responsible for how my products are used?”You may not agree, but it’s a valid ethical stance to hold.

benterix: Yeah but this itself doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, e.g. DARPA sponsored half of the nice things we're using every day.

metalman: the US military is operating outside of all domestic and international law, and the fucking idiots at anthropic think they get a say? mumbling lackies! they took money from that particular devil, and are owned now.

kakonako: I too quit a job that made a significant pivot to weapons R&D. It was a hard move, and honestly I still haven't recovered from it. I don't regret the decision in the slightest though.One aspect that sticks with me was the sheer excitement of a lot of people in the room, engineers excited to be working on new problems. I believe many didn't consider the consequences of their labor.As a worker it can take time for it to sink in that the products you are actively working on are being used for immoral&#x2F;unethical purposes. I've also noticed a perceived weakness when expressing these types of views to colleagues, responses either masked by apathy or just direct justified destruction of lives along patriotic or ideological lines.Its worth bringing up these stories whenever appropriate I believe, people sometimes _need_ a jolt even if the probability of success are low.

suddenlybananas: Iraq was much more popular in 2003 [1] than the current war in Iran is [2].[1] "In the months leading up to the war, majorities of between 55% and 68% said they favored taking military action to end Hussein’s rule in Iraq. No more than about a third opposed military action."https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pewresearch.org&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2023&#x2F;03&#x2F;14&#x2F;a-look-back-...[2] "Some 27% of respondents said they approved of the strikes, which were conducted alongside Israeli attacks on Iran, while 43% disapproved and 29% were not sure"https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;us&#x2F;just-one-four-americans-sup...

vintermann: I was absolutely disgusted by stuff like 24 and zero dark thirty when it came out. "If you cut the throat of the terrorist's son he'll break down and tell you where the bomb is" - they expected the audience to treat that as plausible narrative, and a lot of them clearly did.A lot of the war propaganda from back then is also depressingly similar to what gets pumped out now: you can't argue with success, you don't want to be on the losers' side do you?

nicoburns: Would you consider being a contract killer (i.e. a hitman) ethical? What about being a creator of CSAM? Because those are both examples making money by providing others with what they want. And if we followed free market principles to their logical extreme then both of those would be allowed.I think most people would agree that this would not be even remotely ethical. Nor would it lead to higher living standards than a more restricted market economy.

benterix: This is not true:https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbcnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2024-elections&#x2F;exit-polls

rkomorn: I'm confused. The poll shows ages 45-64 had the highest percentage of Trump voters (54%).Is that not confirming that Gen X (1965-1980, so ages 44-59 in 2024) was the most pro-Trump?

embedding-shape: > Anthropic is clearly the better company over OpenAIWhy do people keep falling into traps of anthropomorphize companies like this? What's the point? Either you care about a company in the "for-profit" sense, and then money is all that matters (so clearly OpenAI currently wins there), or you care about pesky things like morality and ethics, and then you should look beyond corporations, because they're not humans, stop treating them as such. Both of them do their best to earn as much as possible, and that's their entire "morality", as they're both for-profit companies,.

gbin: Didn't the silicon valley basically bootstrapped with defense contracts?

keiferski: No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level.I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.)Seems pretty straightforward to me.I think there are definitely many positions with which I disagree, but are nonetheless well-thought through and coherent.But it seems pretty clear that the people making these decisions haven’t done the work of thinking it through, and are instead just trying to maximize money. That’s my claim, at least.

sumedh: Has Dario been to the whitehouse?

Hikikomori: I don't see masked thugs harassing citizens in other countries. Maybe the problem isn't that immigration is enforced, its how they are doing it? Both Obama and Biden deported more people than Trump.

astura: This is really, really , really bad revisionist history boarding on fanfiction - The U.S. military directly built the entire foundation of the modern tech industry. There's a reason that the Internet started out as ARPANET (ARPA [now DARPA] being a DoD agency).

throwaway132448: You seem to be implying that would mean something. Sounds naive&#x2F;desperate.

ap99: Nazi Germany and Hitler didn't pose an existential threat to Europe until they did pose a threat.And even then you had politicians like Chamberlain in the UK who wanted to make peace because the UK wasn't directly threatened (this is after much of Europe was under siege).

Phemist: Similarly in the pilot episode of Designated Survivor. "Let's nuke Teheran" was seen as a valid, and brilliant, tactical move in order to get negotiations with Iran to go Kiefer Sutherland's way.

bdangubic: this isn’t true either, 2024 election saw the highest number of people voting - https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Voter_turnout_in_United_States...

anentropic: Arguably the original name was the newspeak and the new name is more honest

laserlight: I don't get the point. What does objectivity have to do with the value of x?Your example seems to validate my point of view: warmongers disguise their subjectivity by basing their actions on “objective” models.

donkeybeer: Option C: God doesn't exist as far as is currently known

vldszn: Under Secretary of War Emil Michael: I want to end all speculation: there is no active DeptofWar negotiation with AnthropicAIhttps:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;uswremichael&#x2F;status&#x2F;2029754965778907493?s=46&t...

lukan: "DARPA sponsored half of the nice things we're using every day"That's a very bold claim. (And I am aware of the history of the Internet)

benterix: "Half" is obviously an exaggeration but apart from time-sharing operating systems, the Internet, what is now CSAIL and (partially) GPS, they sponsored a ton of open source projects. They used to maintain a catalog[0]. The Web Archive version[1] contains a partial list (e.g. OpenBSD was sponsored only for a few years and is not included there).[0] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.darpa.mil&#x2F;opencatalog[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20140301185004&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.darpa...

danielsamuels: It's worth reading his recent comments on this whole affair: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.a16z.news&#x2F;p&#x2F;emil-michaels-holy-cow-moment-with

small_model: Or someone with a backbone, i.e. willing to enforce the law.

booleandilemma: [delayed]

duskdozer: I wonder how much this changes based on country. The closest thing to a war happening within US borders was the attack on Pearl Harbor (I think). The US hasn't had conscription for 50 years. So there isn't much of a clearly visible and direct cost to war for many many Americans. I'm not arguing there isn't a cost, by the way, just that most can basically just not watch the news and have no idea war is happening.

vldszn: Thank you, will take a look

sph: The guy that replaced Noem yesterday was dubbed by Trump a ‘MAGA warrior’

olivierestsage: Well, I’m in the US and have been following politics closely for the entire time window you mention, and this year marks the first time I’ve heard it. It is very jarring and a notable rhetorical shift from the concept of “service”.

tw04: > Why aren’t there more dissidents among the researcher ranks?Because they’ve likely all lost faith in humanity watching Trump get reelected and now just want to get rich and hope to insulate their families from the reality we’re all living in.

sph: Not disagreeing with you but “I lost all faith in humanity so I might as well run the gas chambers” is the delusion of a psychopath and completely inexcusable.

booleandilemma: The person you're responding to probably hasn't read the book and is just parroting the word. That's kinda where we're at right now in society. I see the comments by malfist and abustamam are similar. No idea what newspeak means, just parroting and saying "that's not its name".The problem will get worse as we have a generation raised by LLMs.

thegreatpeter: What are some examples of a tool the military wanted but the company refused to allow them to use it and getting away with it?

ahsillyme: What's in the autocorrect dictionary usually has nothing to do with what you typically write. No reason to wonder (i.e. if the insinuation being that that's a word they'd typically use).

Aeolun: Because working on things that go boom is like working on fireworks. The fact the end up on people is incidental.

ghywertelling: Technological surplus was created and then it was usurped and used for nefarious purposes.

ghywertelling: Erwin Schrödinger might have abused children because why not, "everything is a wave after all. does it really matter what one wave does to another?"https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger#Sexual_...

DiogenesKynikos: There's a distinction between countries and governments. Both sides officially consider themselves to be China, the country, but under different, competing governments. They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).

komali2: > Both sides officially consider themselves to be ChinaThere is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.> They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.Only one side of that conflict still exists. The other was overthrown by the people of Taiwan in the 90s. Descendants of those overthrown maintain government positions under that party name, but it's essentially a different government, given that it's a multi party democracy now, not a single party military dictatorship.> The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).This is mostly true, with caveats: Most people in Taiwan prefer independence, but don't want to declare it to trigger a war, so therefore they only prefer status quo because it involves independence without war. If they could get it, most Taiwanese would prefer declared independence with no threat of war, but pragmatism rules out.I'm also not sure I agree the DPP is necessarily pro-overt independence, just the current president tends to use more aggressive language than normal.

fluidcruft: Oh apologies, I interpreted your comment as intended to be part of the discussion rather than as a non-sequitur.

BLKNSLVR: Add The Thirteenth Floor and eXistenZ to the initial list of movies.

furyofantares: It's in a reply chain that's talking about newspeak. You compacted your context way too early.

hereme888: I know many of them personally, and I will not name any of them, so that virtue-signaling radical leftists on the internet cannot harass them.

rhubarbtree: Absolute burn. But accurate.I cannot stand this kind of absolute thinking from the left or right. It’s usually just cope for personal deficiencies.

rhubarbtree: The option is to quit your job and go get a different one. It amazes me that people choose to work at Meta etc. I mean, it’s good for them, but they are choosing a bit more money whilst harming the rest of society. That’s a really bold move, to say that you just don’t care about other people.

refurb: > No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.)You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements.And your logic seems to work backwards: someone does something you disagree with based on your personal ethical view -> assume they aren't well thought out

myrmidon: This is a false dichotomy. In the words of the post-war US strategic bombing survey:"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."While this is all speculation, that was at the very least a defensible point of view held by a bunch of Americans shortly after the war.Regarding firebombing: Hiroshima alone killed probably more civilians than the entire Tokyo firebombing campaign. A firestorm is a terrible thing, but you can still run from a fire even if your whole city burns down; you can't run from a nuke.So if you measure collateral damage primarily in civilian deaths, firebombing still looks much better (a hypothetical firebombing campaign would have probably killed <40k civilians in Hiroshima instead of 100k, guesstimating from Tokyo numbers).

the_af: > When war becomes inevitable, we are forced to choose between morality and survival.The kind of modern wars we're discussing now are often not about survival. Often, the initiator of the war wants dominance rather than survival.This completely changes the equation. I do pass judgement on those who would wage war to ensure their dominance and access to resources.

bradleyjg: I’m not trying to erase anyone’s individual experience, but it isn’t a generational defining event broadly across the U.S. population.

amelius: My guess is that Hegseth saw this tiktok showing a vision of robots deployed by the Chinese army:https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;shorts&#x2F;z5I8HDkrKbI

the_af: > Do you think a continuation of the firebombing campaign and an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in fewer deaths of civilians (particularly of the 'volunteer fighting corps')?I don't know, but there's a lot of evidence this wasn't a factor in the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. The planners for the invasion and the planners for the bombing weren't exactly talking to each other and coordinating the strategy.They had the bomb and they were going to use it. Everything else was an a posteriori justification.Now think what will happen with easily deployed AI-powered weapons.

Forgeties79: Warfighter - it’s basically “oh we got a badass over here.” People who take things and themselves too seriously and chest pound about their service too much.It’s exactly the kind of language people like Hegseth love.

gzread: We'd just cut off all of our goods manufacturing and leave the shelves empty? I don't think it's likely.

gzread: What about Red Scare interests? Venezuela traded with Cuba.

Peritract: The problem as stated isn't finding interested engineers, but qualified ones. Reframing it as just about appeal is disingenuous.

dotancohen: Yes, agreed. Mainland China is not under any threat from Taiwan, for instance.However, the Iranians chant Death To America regularly and openly. They have both an active nuclear program and a means to deliver a nuclear weapon. They are also heavy funders of anti-American militias and groups. It is incumbent upon the Americans to ensure that the Iranians do not achieve their nuclear ambitions.

amai: The leaked memo Anthropic is referring to:"Anthropic CEO says company was punished for not giving "dictator-style praise" or donations to Trump"https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datacenterdynamics.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;news&#x2F;anthropic-ceo-say...

bayindirh: The project management book we used in the university noted that if a person refused to work on weapons&#x2F;military systems and similar, there's no other choice than to respect that, and even asking for its reasons would be borderline unacceptable (depending on your closeness with said person).Now the only reason models trained on any and every public data can't be attached to autonomous weapons is that we didn't fed enough data to these systems to carry this tasks reliably yet.You said the overton window is moved, yet there's no window to discuss about in today's world. As a human being you either get exploited or get exploded. In either case human is the product. We just serve machines at this point.

jfaat: Which of the countries that the US has recently attacked are you comparing to Nazi Germany?

gzread: Our drones will fight their drones, and then whichever side loses, will have their humans fighting the other side's drones, and if the humans somehow win, they will fight the other side's humans. War doesn't have an agreed ending condition.

greybcg: Ever since I was young I was fairly divided on the subject. I've dealt with some highschool students affected by the downed aircraft MH17 and that lead to lots of grief among students. It usually lead to strong anti-war sentiments but some also felt a need to "do" something with it.If no one works on defence systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized, perhaps not this week but in 5 years. Therefore I can reconcile the idea of working for defence related r&d. I also know that these sentiments are used by unscrupulous individuals to gain influence, but I don't feel like we should let that cause a divide between people with a strong moral compass and those without, since we'd be worse off if there was no one in a position of power to make moral decisions. That requires people to judge work based on it's content instead of the domain. It also requires workforce to have enough collective pressure to stall immoral defence (or rather attack) systems.Automated decisionmaking tools throw a wrench into this because it brings us steps closer to mass deployment of questionable and potentially unhinged munitions. If laws mandated human-in-the-loop systems it would be a better outcome.

sillyfluke: No one should apologize for feeling conflicted while giving an issue considerable thought. Constantly reassessing your position based on the changing nature of the world should be encouraged to be the default approach.("Constantly" within reason of course).I can imagine some Americans making a decision based on the threat of other authortarian states and being left completely bewildered when they have to grapple with the notion that their government may be the bigger threat to their own security.

jgbuddy: this paid off so well for anthropic and so poorly for sam altman. Optics are everything- look at the comments of the cbs interview.

snaking0776: Agreed. I find that people who argue that religion is necessary for ethics tend to ignore the history of their religion and the fact that the original text largely serves as a jumping off point for religious philosophers to connect older “secular” texts to this new religion. Modern Christianity is a complex combination of Platonic, Aristotelian, Syrian, and Roman ideals which are taken out of their original context to align with the Bible even though the original writers would say they knew nothing about Jesus. The base texts which many of these ideas are based on make almost no appeals to God and focus more on what it means to live a “good life”. To be fair a lot of great ethical arguments are made by Christian writers but I think that’s more just a consequence of their cultural upbringing and the fact that the thing the New Testament really added to the discussion was that your ethical responsibilities generalize beyond yourself and your friends&#x2F;family.Religious ethics are just as fluid and complex as secular ethics, it’s just that the concept of God makes people think they can claim that their way of thinking is the only one that’s real. I would guess if you self-reflect though you’d see that even within one lifetime the definition of what’s moral in a religious context changes as well.

brazzy: You're confusing lazy cynicism with realism. Patrick Bateman is a fictional character. The vast, vast majority of people, including even most soldiers, and definitely pretty much all businesspeople, no matter how unscrupulous, do not have the capacity to violently murder a person they know and harbor no ill will towards with their own hands on short notice.

gzread: What else did they build?

foobar_______: Agreed. You can quit. That is always an option. "Gotta pay the bills" is definitely valid for some small subset of the us population but that certainly doesn't apply to software engineers in a hub like the bay or seattle. These people delude themselves into thinking they "must" have their ridiculous Meta pay to pay for their $2.5M house and their current lifestyle. Golden handcuffs and turn the blind eye to what they are doing.

Tarq0n: Transcendental moral principles can still be secular.One that I find compelling is that Rawls' veil of ignorance lets us imagine that we might be on either side of a conflict, and that therefore moral actions are equitable to both sides. This gives us a secular morality that doesn't come with the baggage of religious outgroup dynamics.

GJim: > Gen-X was making the popular new art at the time. It was a strong reflection of the feelings of our generation.I posted this in a thread about the 90's film 'Hackers'.....In the 1990's and for us Gen-X'ers, the worst thing you could do was to sell out; to take the mans money instead of keeping your integrity. Calling people and bands 'sell outs' (sometimes without justification!) was to insult them.With the rise of 'influencers' the opposite appears to be the case; people go out of their way to sell out and are praised for doing so. This is a massive change in the cultural landscape which perhaps many born in the 2000's aren't aware of. (Being aware of this helps give some perspective to Gen-X media and films like Hackers).BTW: Remember the 'product scene' in the film Waynes World?

quirk: This comment thread shows how feminized and weakened our language has become. Modern terms like “serviceman” and especially “service member" are mostly 20th–21st century bureaucratic jargon.Soldiers were just called soldiers. The word soldier just means a member of an army and has been used for centuries.Warfighters is probably more accurate for their intended job description.Also the original commenter does not understand the word "Orwellian" and uses it just to mean "different than what I'm used to" which is a common mistake.

throwpoaster: What we now call Silicon Valley was created by the Navy in the late 19th century because they needed advanced radio technology to coordinate Pacific patrols. From then to about five years before the time you’re talking about, schools and tech companies worked closely with the military.On the timescale of the industry as a whole, working with the military has been the norm and we are seeing a reversion to mean after about two decades of aberrant divergence.

Synaesthesia: I hate this glorification of war.

ChoGGi: Press F to pay respects

jwkpiano1: That’s not what the law is. https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;10&#x2F;111

herewulf: You're right about the age of the term but it's nothing to do with combat, but rather just a nice sounding umbrella term that makes talking about joint forces easier because every military service has their own special name for their personnel (soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc..).The POGiest of POGs are "warfighters" and individual organizations within the DoD proudly advertise how they serve runny eggs and chicken to warfighters every day or issue their uniforms&#x2F;equipment with incredible lethargy or maintain their personnel records in 20+ different systems duct taped together."Service member" does get used a lot still. Usually abbreviated to "SM".Source: Personal experience in both combat arms and non combat arms roles.

dormento: > There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one.And if autonomous weapons become the norm, _there will never be_.Imagine a future where people just don't question wars on their ethical basis, since it happens far away and "no one is hurt".

ChoGGi: What is Nov 6 2001?

jwkpiano1: Executive orders aren’t laws. This is: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;10&#x2F;111.

krapp: Congress hasn't said otherwise, so...

jwkpiano1: This isn’t how this works. Laws don’t change just because the executive decides it’s going to ignore them. https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;10&#x2F;111

ChoGGi: > Then after 9&#x2F;11 it kinda seemed like suddenly the TV shows were all about cops and soldiers.There were some rare exceptions like Veep

ImPostingOnHN: > So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions&#x2F;billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kill them. Scam ads. Insurance ads and then people not getting cancer meds from the same insurance.Don't forget ICE and other government agencies using the bidstream data to track the location and behavior of immigrants, dissidents, etc, so they can be tracked down and arrested and sent to the gulag.

zelphirkalt: Fallen far, or maybe we are just more aware now, but anyway, I don't think that a lecture in ethics at university will fix things. That's:(A) way too late, and(B) without a strong character to begin with, this lecture will simply become a "necessary chore" for students, and basically go in one ear, and out the other ear. (Does that saying&#x2F;phrase translate to English?)By the time people start their undergrad, if they are not already at least trying to act ethically, that ship has sailed for most. Their upbringing and education did not manage to drill that into them before. I see it as more of an early childhood and parenting topic. If the parents are not leading by example and teaching their children ethics, then the children are often just going with the flow, not swimming against the current to uphold ideals. Why would they, if the other way is easier. I think it is rare, that people adopt ethics that they have not grown up with &#x2F; raised according to.So I would advocate ethics as a mandatory subject at school, if not primary school already.

davedx: > They have both an active nuclear program and a means to deliver a nuclear weapon.No, they do not

davedx: When is war necessary, at the limit?

sailfast: [delayed]

grosswait: The term war fighter is distinct from service member. War fighter means mission critical and typically in a theater, while a service member might be someone sitting behind a desk in a less critical role. Similar to having mission critical production systems and supporting production systems.When you perform your business impact analysis, these will bubble up in different ways, requiring some differences to the playbooks.

sailfast: [delayed]

ImPostingOnHN: Why would an anyone need prequalification to walk into a room and sit in an audience while lawyers talk about stuff on stage? Just let them in.

DavidVoid: There's an old German short film called Nicht löschbares Feuer (Inextinguishable Fire, 1969)[1] that I'm fond of. It was a protest film against Napalm and how some companies wouldn't really let their employees know what they were actually working on."I am a worker and I work in a vacuum cleaner factory. My wife could use a vacuum cleaner. That's why everyday I pick up a piece. At home I try to assemble the vacuum cleaner. But however I try, it always becomes a sub-machine gun....This vacuum cleaner can become a useful weapon. This sub-machine gun can become a useful household appliance.What we produce it depends on the workers, students, and engineers."That last line is still very relevant today.[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=EnpLS4ct2mM

ghywertelling: This question has been boiling in my brain for quite a long time.Consider a hypothetical scenario where one spy chinese or russian programmer working in Google or Meta might have siphoned off (copied and uploaded) all the important code (Monorepo) to the Mothership and all of us are now sitting ducks.I am sure, this question might have crossed your minds. I have no idea. if blueprints for the TPU chip design could get leaked, imagine what might have already happened?

sabatonfan: Minor point but this doesn't only have to be russian&#x2F;chinese spies but rather this can be anybody including say the UK&#x2F;Israel or even countries which can be considered "allies"I'd also be surprised if this code isn't already available with the US forces too and sometimes the enemy can be from within too.

demorro: I quit a job 8 years ago because I learned my code had been deployed inside missiles. Many of my colleagues had similar red lines. I doubt many would now.

shadowtree: Fun fact:DOW Chemical was producing Agent Orange, but was getting a ton of public pushback - so bad it decided to stop production, forcing the Pentagon to look for an alternative supplier.That supplier? A German privately owned pharmaco called Boehringer-Ingelheim. It's Chairman at the time? Richard von Weizsäcker, future President of Germany.The production site was in Hamburg, is contaminated for the next thousand years. Boehringer is legally forced to operate pumps to prevent the dioxins in that site from reaching the water table. If those did, it would wipe out the full population.Oh those righteous Germans.Disclosure - Boehringer denies the above: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boehringer-ingelheim.com&#x2F;boehringer-ingelheim-di...Judge for yourself.NIH on Exposure, AO and BI: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;books&#x2F;NBK230789&#x2F;Deeper dive on that BI Hamburg site: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ebsco.com&#x2F;research-starters&#x2F;consumer-health&#x2F;diox...

Imustaskforhelp: > No conspiracy necessary. The CIA bought the rights to the 1954 film Animal Farm, modified the ending to fit propagandist ends,yea, I remember reading the book and then watching the movie and it had differences iirc, its available on youtube for free and I remember some comments talking about the different ending.IIRC, in the movie, the animals finally kick the pigs out and everything. It was a good ending.but in the book, there was not a good ending, the humans and the pigs were celebrating together and then ended up fighting in between each other> Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.This is the last paragraph I found from the book (had to download it via archive.org to find the last para)So am I correct or is there more to the story?

roysting: The bigger issue with your perspective is that you do not realize that the underlying purpose of the things you do not attribute to the military or equate as bad, is still groundwork or “capacity building” deliberately for militaristic purposes and objectives, usually very intentionally so that you don’t realize it. You would likely not support things if you were overly told what the underlying objective was.Let me put it this way, if you wanted a populace that will willingly enter the military to serve your purposes of world domination through constant warfare, would you promote TV and movies, rather than reading classical literature and philosophy; and fund and press movie houses to make films that put joining the military to go to war and templating being a “warrior” as a positive thing instead of a negative, murderous thing?

benterix: I don't have any perspective, just state a fact - DARPA did contribute to things we find useful.The core issue itself is terribly complex because in an ideal world we would never need military at all, and at least in Europe we had this hope that humanity is evolving in this direction, and that eventually even the wars in the Middle East and Africa will calm down. 2014 and 2022 were rude awakenings - there are crazy people out there, and they became nation leaders, and will start a war for one reason or another. That's why I don't have a unified opinion on that, especially that some military tech like interceptors are saving people's lives.

KellyCriterion: Nitpick here:They didnt produce the final Agent Orange, they produced on of the materials needed for Agent Orange:2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic

abustamam: Good point. Yeah it's an accurate description of the department; I'd want to rename a bunch of other departments to be more accurate too, since apparently names are arbitrary now!

g947o: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Project_Maven

watwut: > If no one works on defence systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized, perhaps not this week but in 5 yearsAll the things we have are jeopardized because those systems are actually attack systems and were just used to start a war. We will be lucky if it wont grow into WWIII.And I just read an article about how those defense systems are used to bomb hospitals with double tap tactic - meaning you bomb rescuers when they come. Literally the first day of that no-defense war, they were used to bomb a school. And before that, they were used to execute fishermen and maybe smugglers with no judicial review. Just to make someone feel manly.

hirako2000: > Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences.They should rather say, we don't have to take you to court, just a misunderstanding.

hmokiguess: I’m curious to hear from the conspiracists out there what’s silently cooking while all this noise is happening.There’s so much circular investment and connections that makes you wonder if this is a theatre in some form or another.Say this were to be the case, what would be the end goal? Genuinely curious.

dotancohen: Yes, agreed 100%. Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent. The smaller states in the areas are under constant threat.However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you.

the_af: > Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent.Agreed, but you and I are not thinking of the same "groups".> However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you.No, Iran poses no real threat to America, and according to Trump last year suffered a 10+ year setback in their nuclear ambitions. Do you think Trump was lying back then, now, or both?The US is asserting dominance. Even Trump occasionally says so. Iran mostly poses a danger to their own citizens and, arguably, against Israel when conflict flares up in the region, but not to the US.By the way, the current situation in Iran is heavily influenced by actions by the UK and the US in the region, back in the 50s. So maybe meddling is not the right course of action?

micromacrofoot: When I was a kid just the rumor of "selling out" could kill the popularity of something, now it's often the goal.

Izikiel43: > Don't see money as the only goal?That’s easy to say when you have money, it kind of sounds like “let them eat cake”

lunias: I wish people still knew how to compromise when it's in their best interest to do so. Heads up for those that live in a fantasy land: They are going to create both autonomous weapons and mass surveillance with AI. It's better to have a seat at the table than to cede to you biggest competitor (of even more questionable moral &#x2F; ethical character).

TremendousJudge: maybe they should make the person with the codes black. I think several cold-war presidents probably wouldn't have a problem with that

Nevermark: We could joke about the auto correct knowing your subconscious mind.Except if Facebook has auto correct, you can be sure it’s driven by a personal dossier on each of us, correlated by AI with every other person on the planet.They know you were thinking that word!The neverending benefits of personalization.

gcanyon: Ooh, I can't believe I missed this one.

the_af: > Yes, but it takes time.So be it.This doesn't excuse going to war with neighbors because you want to steal their stuff. Learn to live with yours.

qsera: Learn? Can you learn to live without eating? Do you know what happens when an economy collapse?

the_af: > Can you learn to live without eating?Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies?All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized?

qsera: Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that?If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about..

thinking_cactus: > If no one works on defence systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized, perhaps not this week but in 5 years. Therefore I can reconcile the idea of working for defence related r&d.I am not saying this line of thinking is completely absurd. But I think every individual considering this should reflect a lot. (1) Is your country using its ""defense"" systems wisely? (2) Won't the technology be replicated by adversaries anyways? (3) etc..Overall, the number of people and resources spent on Weapons R&D is probably significantly more than people working on things like diplomacy, ethics, or activism for international human rights (assuming human rights violations are the only legitimate reason for war).It's significantly safer for individual nations and humanity as a whole if we're not all armed to the teeth constantly on the brink of large conflict, and instead are more or less ethically aligned, all respect basic human rights, and respect other nations.

dashzebra: Is the term "warfighter" new? I had never hears it until recently. Sounds like "soldier" would be the usual terminology.

bakies: no, but it wasn't common. It's Hegseth's choice of words, just like Department of War isn't the name of the DoD but Hegseth puts it on his office door.

LunaSea: I think that there is a difference between wishful thinking about how things should be versus preparing based on how things are.Also diplomacy doesn't have a great track record for the past 100 years.

InitialLastName: Confirmed, that's the last paragraph in my 1996 Signet Classics copy.

stuartaxelowen: Given the atomization and layering of work, this has become much harder to truly judge. Ten years ago I was excited to join a customer feedback platform - what could be better than helping companies understand their customers and provide better services and products? You can probably see where this is going, but inevitably the tools were just used to better tweak product profitability and eliminate end customer surplus, to the customer company’s benefit. And they were used by the likes of draft kings et al along with the Starbucks and Nikes of the world. I hear people claim that, in capitalism, no one hands are clean, and I am inclined to agree.

pbh101: Agree an option for consideration.I don’t think religion is the only path, but that it has functioned as a prosocial positive-sum cooperating&#x2F;compassion technology&#x2F;mechanism in many cultural contexts. Not without downsides, of course.That many today relatively reflexively default to ~‘we can all be nice to each other; this is obviously the (only) moral approach’ without stated precepts&#x2F;priors&#x2F;fundaments upon which that morality is moored I think tends to implicitly borrow priors from Western Christian tradition, albeit incompletely and sometimes critically so. Sam Harris’ recent appearance on Ross Douthat’s ‘Interesting Times’ podcast was IMO an example of this.

davedx: > This line of thinking, that creating machines that kill is unethical, will destroy the West.He specifically said autonomous killing machines. You understand the difference right?

gosub100: Reread the original quote:"what if the code you write OR autonomous machine you contribute to used for killing"

gzread: How well do horses fare against tanks - anyone know? Tanks are really big and bulky and I'm sure (well-trained) horses could literally run circles around them, which wouldn't do any good because how would you get through the armor.

WalterBright: A cavalry charge was tried once in the opening days of WW1. A machine gun took care of it. Tanks have machine guns.

hn_acker: Mike Masnick's commentary at [1].[1] Anthropic's Statement To The 'Department Of War' Reads Like A Hostage Note Written In Business Casual - https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techdirt.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;03&#x2F;06&#x2F;anthropics-statement-to-...

SirMaster: You are saying fascists don't care if it inaccurately targets themselves?

gverrilla: USA is collapsing.

mindslight: [delayed]

AndrewKemendo: NoMe, an Iraq combat veteran had a different experience of that period than an investment baker of similar ageThat was not true for WWII and to a lesser extent Vietnam due to the draftThe distinction is draft vs “all volunteer” wars

mrs6969: What is objective; does iraq having chemical weapons objective for example?Or childrens died because of invasion is more objective?Which one?

brazzy: The whole damn point behind the idea is to achieve the exact opposite. Make it someone, through whatever criteria, whom the president will have a problem killing, so he'll only do it under the most extreme circumstances.

cat_plus_plus: I have an NVIDIA Thor Dev Kit, a somewhat less known cousin of DGX Spark.

financltravsty: One of my best friends is a philosophy grad, and another is a very intelligent financier. What we've come to realize is that speaking and writing and making arguments is fruitless. You either have had the embodied experiences to recognize a statement is directionally correct -- to various magnitudes -- or you don't.No amount of words will change that.It is my experience -- after seeing the quality of thinking from those philosophically trained (I am not) -- that learning philosophy is learning how to think, and by extension figuring out for oneself what is capital g Good.Morals and ethics are different and you conflate them. That is the crux of your confusion. Someone can understand morality inherently without ever thinking about it; but ethics requires actual intentional thought over years and years of reflecting on lived experience. What is good for you and your small circle can be grasped intuitively, but to grasp what is good "at scale" must be reasoned about. Without having seriously grappled with this, one is liable to have simplistic views, and in many cases hold views that have already been trodden through and whose "holes" have been exposed and new routes taken in unveiling ethics.Without seriously having interfaced with it, it's like talking to someone about the exercise science when all they know is do steroids, lift weight, and eat. Sure, that works, but it lacks nuance and almost no thought has gone into it.Anyway, this is tiring. Philosophical discussions are not something to do with strangers. It requires intimacy and is a deeply personal conversation one should have with those close to them and explore together.

refurb: > Someone can understand morality inherently without ever thinking about it;How so? This would infer some universal set of morality, which doesn't exist.> Anyway, this is tiring. Philosophical discussions are not something to do with strangers.I think it's tiring because you view ethics and morality as a box that thinking has to happen in. But it's not. Ethics and morality can be anything (as we've seen through human history).

keiferski: My requirements for someone's ethical opinions to be "valid" are that they don't criticize the field of ethics as useless. I guess that is a "requirement" I have, but it's a pretty nitpicking, useless distinction to make.If someone criticizes the French language, but doesn't speak a word of French, sorry, but I don't have much respect for their opinion on French.And no, I don't "assume they aren't well thought out," because many of these people have explicitly said philosophy is a waste of time.

refurb: I'm just having an intellectual argument with you, so thanks for sharing your thoughts.In a non-theological world, the source of ethics can be anything - parents, community, study of ethhics. None of them is more valid than another - because requiring "a respect for the field of philosophy" is a ethical position in and of itself.

lukan: Do you claim there are only unethical income choices? Or do you claim your expected standard of income comes only with unethical offers?

LunaSea: I think that you can find something morally wrong with most companies or practices within these companies.

lukan: Oh if you are looking for dirt, you can find dirt allmost anywhere, but im gemeral I do see a difference in making a website for a kindergarten, vs applying the most efficient tech to track and target children with manipulative ads.

LunaSea: Sure, but maybe you'll have to ad dark patterns, track users or create ad campaigns yourself for this kindergarten website.Maybe that kindergarten want to cut food and people costs to make more money. Which could lead to very real consequences for the kids as well.

lukan: Yes and if you have ethics then you can say no. Also I never saw a Kindergarten website that even remotely did this.

antonvs: You desperately need to study some philosophy.“Your viewpoint” is a superstitious one that stole everything from previous superstitions. It’s also irredeemably immoral and violent. Not to mention based in an obvious fantasy which should have been left in the Bronze Age where it belonged.You have a mind. Learn to use it.

DiogenesKynikos: "China" is analogous to "France," not "Europe."There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy.> Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.We live in a post-WWII world of national sovereignty and inviolable borders (or at least we did until very recently). That's what China rests on for its claims, legally speaking.

komali2: "France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra.Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over certain territories just because of the territory of previous governments, or because of the distributions of certain ethnicities, religions, or languages. I think it's important for people to maintain an identity separate from any given government, to defang the ability of governments to leverage racialized nationalism to protect the state's continuity at all costs, even to the detriment to the people living in its territory.By the way, it remains false that Taiwan makes any claims to PRC territory. Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.

DiogenesKynikos: > Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China:"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of China very explicitly claimed all of China (plus Mongolia). The constitution sets that claim in stone, and says that it can only be changed by an act of the legislature. There's never been such an act.Taiwan formally recognizes mainland China as the "Mainland Area," and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area." It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control (and now no longer want to regain control over).

UncleMeat: The US is taking money from food assistance and spending it on missiles.

rockskon: So the military likes to keep saying.Most people here have no cultural relationship to that era of 38 years back. You may as well talk about the bubonic plague that ravaged San Francisco in the early 1900's and how it changed the course of the city that eventually led to where it is today.

7952: Yes. I don't think any of us can really understand what it is like to be in a war zone. Proximity to that must completely change people's outlook.

sumedh: Why?

SirMaster: But if the argument is that they don't care about accuracy, then what's to stop the system from targeting themselves or the leaders they support?Remember, the system is not accurate, so you cannot accurately tell it to avoid or ignore anyone special.I think they do care that it's accurate. That it accurately targets other people not themselves or their leaders.

bad_haircut72: Ever heard of Dirty Harry? This is a very old trope.

K0balt: I see you have not met my (ex) sister in law. Alternatively, you have, and you are a much better (stronger? More stoic? More charitable? I don’t even know what it would take) man than I am. Hats off to you, and Godspeed!