When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business."
When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it."
That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what they wanted, and OpenAI wasn't going to get anywhere without agreeing to that. They're about as transparent as Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia when he's telling everyone he's playing both sides.
I'm also waiting on my ChatGPT data export. I started it last night and I'm still waiting. I would say there's huge opportunity here for Claude to offer direct import tooling.
"Red lines" does not mean some philosophical line they will not cross.
"Redlines" are edits to a contract, sent by lawyers to the other party they're negotiating with. They show up in Word's Track Changes mode as red strikethrough for deleted content.
They are negotiating the specifics of a contract, and Anthropic's contract was overly limiting to the DoD, whereas OpenAI's was not.
That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942.
After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power.
That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist.
Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.
Yep, it’s a case of are they willing to impeach the president over this. And the answer is likely no. Some of the America first lot might vote against on ‘How does this help America’ grounds but I don’t see them getting near the threshold.
> It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".
I don't know why we're getting mired in the details here. The administration certainly isn't. We all work for trump now. Lawyers, journalists, universities, tech companies, state, local and foreign governments. Anything trump or one of his designated people wants, you need to do. If you start sputtering about your agency or your rights or your sovereignty, then expect as much shit thrown at you as the trump organization can muster. That's it, there is no legal justification. There are no fine points to argue. Obey or be punished.
So the president can wage war without the Congress, but it can't officially rename the department that supports these wars autocratically. That's interesting.
Incorrect. The only times America has formally declared war were the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.
In the case of the Barbary Wars, Vietnam War, the Iraq War and War on Terror / Afghanistan War, etc... congress approved military engagement but DID NOT issue a formal Declaration of War.
The Department of Defense was established by the National Security Act of 1947. If the Congress wanted to change the name then they would pass another law to do so.
Even though the the DoD was created via an act of Congress, as POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch and the CiC of the armed forces, could you make an argument that a name change can be done by executive order? (setting aside whether or not the new proposed name is stupid)
because most americans do not want war, at least id hope, so calling it that seems pretty short sited (maybe until you continually do that 'war' thing), if you want the citizens to look positively on your spending it should probably be for defense not war, again, at least i should hope. im just a dumb "lib" whatever that means
I think you're the one applying anti-vax logic here. Imagine beating a guy up for looking at you wrong and then get into a semantic argument with the judge on how you shouldn't be charged with assault because it was actually an act of defense, you see if you hadn't assaulted them they would surely have assaulted you so it's defense.
You're basically saying the US don't need a Department of Defense because the Department of War is doing such a good job.
Yeah, otherwise the USA would have been invaded by Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and a hundred more, and they all would have a fight over who can have it. Thank god the US defended themselves against those terrible guys. Especially the WMDs were quite the close call, the Iraqis were minutes away from nuking the land of the mart.
Yes, invading Hawaii was part of imperial Japanese planning. If you don’t understand that defense spending is still worthwhile even if you don’t blow anything up with it, I’m not sure how we connect.
What is currently considered the DoD was built after WW2 as the "National Military Establishment" by the "National Security Act of 1947" which restructured and reformed significant war and military assets under the "Secretary of Defense" and the NME was very quickly renamed the "Department of Defense".
The "Department of War" during WW2 was in control of the Army, and was separate from the Department of the Navy and eventual Department of the Air Force (spun off from the Army) and was headed by the "Secretary of War".
Changing the name to "Defense" was an intentional act by a President and government who wanted to reduce the power of the Military Industrial Complex and reduce the "War" focus of a subset of the government, and force the different departments to work together and share toys.
The reorganization was desired for many reasons but Truman made lots of talk about how this was about the national defense and made gestures to the Pearl Harbor attack as something relevant. Different departments failing to work together was a huge problem during WW2, and other wars. Putting them all under one single cabinet position, the Secretary of Defense, was a significant point.
This vocab was used during the war, about the reorganization being about the defense of the nation.
Similarly, NATO is a defense only pact, in very clear terms.
There was tons of debate in the US government at the time as to whether we had viable intelligence of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor ahead of time and it wasn't properly utilized or disseminated. In fact, there were many such instances in the Pacific Theater early on, where poor intelligence handling resulted in worse battle outcomes.
The point of the Department of Defense is to Defend America, and they do that by being in control of our Military. Letting our defense assets bully the world is the Utter Failure of the American voting public over the past 100 years.
Stoping and questioning why somebody uses DoD or DoW is way more telling than using any of those. Especially that both are perfectly fine, even officially.
A square was renamed in my home city about 20 years ago. We still use the original one usually, even teens know that name. I use a form of the original name of our main stadium which was renamed almost 30 years ago. Heck, some people use names of streets which are not official for almost 40 years now. Btw, the same with departments of the government. Nobody follows how they called at the moment, because nobody really cares. That’s the strange when somebody cares.
Or it could have just been a genuine question. I'm not American and I've seen DoW used in newspapers and thought the name change was official. Personally I've thought it a more apt and honest name for what they do.
But the backlash in the commments here show how ideologically charged the question seem to be.
I wasn't aware of how ideologically charged the question was. I'm also not American, but I'm glad I made the question. It's a clear sign for us not Americans to just leave them be.
I agree. I live in Brazil and even though tariffs and interventions weren't directed at us, they influence the economy and political decisions. Also, Venezuela is right next to us, so instabilities there do tend to affect the whole region.
Do you really trust in random comments on the internet which states something to which the possibility is slim, because literally nobody cares why somebody calls the way it is, when that somebody knows both names, and when it's not political? I don't think that's optimal, and it's a hefty understatement of course.
> Among U.S. federal agencies, the order authorized the official use of the secondary title "Department of War" for the United States Department of Defense. The department now refers to itself as the "Department of War" for non-statutory purposes, but is still technically named the Department of Defense, as only an act of Congress can formally change the name of a federal department.
What does 'a legal approach' mean where there is no rule of law? USA just bombed another country without having a domestic legal basis for that. Can't imagined they're holding back on AI use that is illegal -- even textbook-clear warcrimes (like blowing up shipwrecked people) does not give Hegseth and Trump pause.
That goes for domestic actions too, happy to arm a paramilitary and set them loose against citizens who are not politically aligned with Trump... the Republican Senate barely even blinks. Hard to imagine they'd care about AI use in mass surveillance, nor AI use in automated anti-personnel weapons. The Senate will be, 'Oh no they unlawfully killed USA citizens, again... Welp, let me check my insider trading gains... yh, seems fine'.
If I were to run this on a VM, would the host machine start transmitting AM, or would the hypervisor ruin the mechanism in which this works?
I rent a VPS at a nearby datacenter, and I could maybe ask for a tour. It would be interesting if I could pick up these signals from their server racks by running the code on my VM.
I thought about this for a minute, and my theory is that it wouldn't, because the hypervisor wasn't based on an RTOS. If it was RTOS-based, and the hypervisor's needed to use a known constant amount of time for its own housekeeping, you might be able to find a frequently multiple that worked.
But as things are, I don't THINK so, due to indeterminate scheduling. The likelihood is very low. (Translation: I really do want this to work because it would be cool :P - but the VM world has already been turned upside down this year....)
If you have a spare machine lying around you could maybe spin up the same VM software on that and see if anything interesting happens. After establishing very very good radio transmissions off the bare metal (and finding all potential frequencies etc), of course.
The other good question is what sort of transmission frequency would be used by the hardware your VPS is running on. That would be fun to find out about...
When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business."
When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it."
That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what they wanted, and OpenAI wasn't going to get anywhere without agreeing to that. They're about as transparent as Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia when he's telling everyone he's playing both sides.