The Department of War has stated they will only contract with AI companies who accede to “any lawful use” and remove safeguards in the cases mentioned above. They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.
Regardless, these threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.
It is the Department’s prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision. But given the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider. Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters—with our two requested safeguards in place. Should the Department choose to offboard Anthropic, we will work to enable a smooth transition to another provider, avoiding any disruption to ongoing military planning, operations, or other critical missions. Our models will be available on the expansive terms we have proposed for as long as required.
You really aren’t beating the Yudkowsky/LessWrong allegations with this one, you know.
If you really think LLMs might mean nothing at all when it comes to actually achieving AGI, then maybe you should speak out against the environmental destruction they’re doing today with full endorsement from Anthropic and all the other corporate AI perverts.
That doesn’t have anything to do with my claim about the inevitability of AGI.
It is everything to do with your claim about its inevitability, because we’re witnessing real life in the present day, not some fantasy prediction of the future. If people like Dario and Eli get their way, there will be no future to get AGI.
… I am growing increasingly concerned you really are a Yudkowskist rationalist
You don’t seem very interested in sticking to the topic, do you? This conversation has been all over the place, complete with ad-hominems, concern-trolling, red herrings, strawmen, gish galloping - as if you’re trying to break some kind of record.
It’s pretty clear you’ve built up a cartoon-villain version of me in your head and now you’re fighting that imagined version like it’s real. I made a pretty simple claim about AGI, you’ve piled an entire story on top of it, and now you’re demanding I defend views I don’t even hold.
I’ve been trying to have a good-faith conversation here, but if this is what you’re going to keep doing, then I’ll just move on.
The topic of…LLMs? Because that’s what this thread is. If you come in here and you start talking about something that’s entirely unrelated to LLMs (what was that about red herrings?) I’ll point it out.
And if it’s based on Yudkowskism, all the more reason to call it out. You’re aware of the sexual abuse and death Eli Yudkowski is either directly or indirectly responsible for, right?