> "We have these two red lines... Not allowing Anthropic's AI to perform mass surveillance of Americans, and prohibiting its AI from powering fully-autonomous weapons..."
Anthropic literally said the same, but seem to be getting positive PR.
The difference is that Anthropic actually dotted the i's and crossed the t's whereas OpenAI fell for the weaselwords and is now desperately trying to renegotiate.
OpenAI didn't fall for anything, they knew exactly what they were signing and went ahead anyway, then started gaslighting people about what they had signed.
For a lot of people (me included) the lack of integrity and the gaslighting is what has soured them on OpenAI, rather than them signing up to build surveillance and weaponry.
To non-US citizens, all AI companies are as dangerous as each other, OpenAI just really botched the optics here.
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.
So much left unsaid. So much implied. Let’s make it explicit and talk about it. Here are some follow questions that reasonable people will ask:
What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?
More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?
How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)
P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.
> Binance holds about 87% of USD1, the stablecoin issued by a Trump family crypto venture—a greater concentration than any other major stablecoin has at a single exchange, roughly $4.7 billion of the $5.4 billion total supply.
Amazon turned me off selling completely. I was subjected to an obvious fraudulent buyer on a high value item ($5k) and they did everything in their power to make it as painful as possible for me to fight:
- An A-Z claim from the buyer was denied by Amazon for fraud (supposed non-delivery of the item), yet their returns department auto-approved a return for the same order just 12 days later.
- The customer returned a completely different item with documented serial number/weight discrepancies and seller-provided video evidence, yet I was left with no recourse.
- The customer then filed a fraudulent credit card chargeback. I won the first round, but Amazon refuses to participate in second-round disputes - so despite overwhelming evidence of five separate fraud attempts, they sent a generic email and docked $5k from my seller account.
- Amazon then refused to answer any further communications, including basic disclosure of which card issuer was involved or what evidence was submitted - making any independent appeal impossible.
- Every dispute stage (A-Z, returns, chargebacks) required rebuilding the fraud case from scratch. Zero continuity, and zero care for an independent seller with a strong track record of sales and feedback.
reply