OpenAI says Americans shouldn’t worry about the ethics of its new Pentagon contract. You’ll have to take their word for it (and Pete Hegseth’s).

OpenAI claims it has accomplished what Anthropic couldn’t: securing a Pentagon contract that won’t cross professed red lines against dragnet domestic spying and the use of artificial intelligence to order lethal military strikes. Just don’t expect any proof.

Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, announced the company’s big win with the Defense Department in a post on X on February 27.

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

The deal came after the very public implosion of what was to be a similar contract between the U.S. military and Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s chief rivals. Anthropic had said negotiations collapsed because it could not enshrine prohibitions against killer robots and domestic spying in its contract. The company’s insistence on these two points earned it the wrath of the Pentagon and President Donald Trump, who ordered the government to phase out use of Anthropic’s tools within six months.

But if the government booted Anthropic for refusing mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, how could OpenAI take over the contract without having the same problem?

OpenAI has attempted to square this circle through a string of posts to X by company executives and researchers, including Katrina Mulligan, its national security chief, and a claim by Altman that the company negotiated stricter protections around domestic surveillance.

The company and the government, however, are not releasing the only proof that matters: the contract itself.

The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.

  • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
    141·
    12 hours ago

    These systems were trained on 4Chan, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter posts and comments. They weren’t trained on military communication, guidelines, etc.

    They know more about Call of Duty than they know about actual warfare. What the fuck do you think they’re gonna recommend?

    Honestly, this applies to the entire DOW under Hegseth. The fact that we even have to use a term like “double tap” to describe genocide and war crimes committed by the U.S. and have Marco Rubio tweeting about it with fucking emojis is so fucking disgusting and shameful, but also part of the propaganda they’re relying on to sell this back to their base.

    It down plays the seriousness of the entire situation, and makes naive people feel much safer than they should. Almost like a stranger in a van offering candy to kids, so that by the time they realize they’re in danger it’s too late.

    Propaganda aside and more to the point of why it’s so dangerous, you might find this article posted a while back interesting. You’re absolutely right, and the point should really be brought up all the time, but it never is.

    We’ve always know war is good business. If you can create eternal war, you never have to worry about peacetime getting in the way of your profits. So how can you create the world where war never has to end.

    Private Tech Companies, the State, and the New Character of War https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/12/ukraine-war-tech-companies

    Mass surveillance and social media now generate huge amounts of data during war. At the same time, the widespread availability of the smartphone means civilians carry around advanced sensors that can broadcast data more quickly than the armed forces themselves. This enables civilians to provide intelligence to the armed forces in ways that were not previously possible. Matthew Ford and Andrew Hoskins label this a “new war ecology” that is “weaponizing our attention and making everyone a participant in wars without end . . . [by] collapsing the distinctions between audience and actor, soldier and civilian, media and weapon.” In this ecology, warfare is participatory. Social media platforms such as TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Telegram are no longer merely tools for consuming war reportage; militaries accessing and processing open-source data from these platforms shapes the battlespace in real time by contributing to wider situational awareness.

    As a result of their work in Ukraine, a slew of companies like Palantir have drawn media attention.9 While commercial interests have rarely aligned neatly with geopolitics, circumstances are changing; private technology firms increasingly occupy, manage, and in some cases dominate the digital infrastructure upon which militaries now rely. States themselves have fostered this shift through selective deregulation and outsourcing of technology development. These dynamics are visible in the war in Ukraine and in the wider geopolitical contest over the global digital stack. As we argued in “Virtual Sovereignty,” a paper we published in International Affairs, this influence has major geopolitical consequences for how states use power.

    What is at stake, beyond the conflict itself, is the nature of state sovereignty. The ability of states to govern, defend, and act independently is increasingly mediated by private technology firms and global finance. This is not entirely new. States have long relied on private contractors, but the kind of dependency has changed. Unlike traditional arms manufacturers, today’s defense-tech firms control the digital platforms, data flows, and algorithmic systems that underpin military decisionmaking. At the same time, civilian platforms like Telegram and TikTok shape the informational terrain of conflict, influencing how wars are perceived and fought.