MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xpe | 2026-02-28 03:43:27+00:00
> Obviously the DoD would not want limited use.

I agree in this sense: _Hegseth's_ Dept. of War doesn't want any restrictions. I'll try to make the case this is self-defeating.

Historically, other (wiser) SecDefs would decide more carefully. They would recognize Hegseth's course of action has these likely effects:

1. Positions DoD outside of reasonable ethical norms, as defined both by technologists and broader culture ... unless the DoD wants to expend considerable energy trying to shape the narrative, which requires resources they probably would spend elsewhere. Even so, such a PR campaign could fall flat or even backfire.

2. Jeopardizes DoD's access to the best technology;

3. Hegsethian/Trumpist bullying leads to fearful contractors. Fearful contractors perform worse. Fewer good contractors show up.

4. Trumpist corruption further degrades an already lagging, sluggish, inefficient system. *

5. Undermines efforts in hiring the best people

6. Demotivates existing employees and contractors

7. Bad PR damages international goodwill that takes a long time to restore. Goodwill is a good investment; it pays dividends for U.S. military strength.

8. The fallout will distract Hegseth from legitimately important duties

9. This will blow up into a political mess for Hegseth, undermining his effectiveness as a leader

* Improving DoD procurement is already hard given existing constraints. Adding Trumpist-level corruption makes it unnecessarily worse. There is already an unsavory, poorly tracked, bloated gravy train around the military industrial complex.**

** BUT... Despite all this, the system has more or less worked reasonably well for something like half a century. And it was showing signs of getting better, at least technically, in the last decade. It has enjoyed bipartisan continuity, kept scientists and mathematicians well funded, and spurred lots of useful industries. It is, in a weird gnarly way, a sort of flux capacitor for U.S. technical dominance.
by Lerc | 2026-02-28 03:45:02+00:00
>what exactly is this specific challenge of adding numbers with a transformer model demonstrating/advancing?

Well for starters, it puts the lie to the argument that a transformer can only output examples it has seen before. Performing the calculation on examples that haven't been seen demonstrates generalisation of the principles and not regurgitation.

While this misconception persists in a large number of people, counterexamples can always serve a useful purpose.
by dralley | 2026-02-28 03:45:02+00:00
You are making a mistake in thinking that Trump thinks of these things in political terms. Trump sees a charismatic and popular politician and he wants to associate with them on that basis alone, because Trump has a deep psychological need to be liked. Mamdani understands his psychology and is able to exploit it well by playing his own attributes to his advantage.

Politically, it's not like Trump tolerates dissent within the Republican party, he constantly threatens and berates anyone who shows defiance into submission. It's precisely because Mamdani is not in his tent and not really much of a threat to his power that he is willing to deal with him that way.
by AdieuToLogic | 2026-02-28 03:45:15+00:00
> We need key AI researchers at these companies to speak out ...

See this[0] article from Business Insider dated 2026-02-16 titled:

The art of the squeal

What we can learn from the flood of AI resignation letters

And containing:

This past week brought several additions to the annals of
"Why I quit this incredibly valuable company working on
bleeding-edge tech" letters, including from researchers at
xAI and an op-ed in The New York Times from a departing
OpenAI researcher. Perhaps the most unusual was by Mrinank
Sharma, who was put in charge of Anthropic's Safeguards
Research Team a year ago, and who announced his departure
from what is often considered the more safety-minded of the
leading AI startups.

0 - https://www.businessinsider.com/resignation-letters-quit-ope...
by YeezyMode | 2026-02-28 03:45:18+00:00
It likely helps to take in the cultural moment or context around the statements or the nature of the statements you're making. It's fine to state a fact but it's also helpful to make it clear whether you are saying "it is what it is " or "I wish things were different" or "I am doing X, Y, and Z to try and help and I recommend others do so". Jokes are an exception and I think misunderstandings are fine there. But it's unreasonable to think that on the Internet, people will "check to see if you are serious".
by dang | 2026-02-28 03:45:26+00:00
> I see comments like this all the time on HN, including between community members

That's bad, and I'd like to see links to those.

> Why are you showing up now?

If you mean why do I respond to post A but not B, the answer is usually that I saw A but didn't see B. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).

> Are we allowed, for example, to call Trump an insecure man with orange skin and tiny hands?

That's certainly a cliché, and it's hard to see how repetition of tropes fits with the intellectual curiosity that we're optimizing for (or rather, trying to! - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). As I've said in the past, curiosity withers under repetition and fries under indignation (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).

I think, though, that the issue with a political cliché is rather different than posting that someone "doesn't look human".
by jzkdroid2 | 2026-02-28 03:45:47+00:00
I tested openclaw for a few days. The way I got around this was creating openclaw it's own gmail. Any email sent would be from that email. I gave that email access to a shared calendar so it could add events to mine. It gets to act as a second email.

Edit: the costs were through the roof at the time so I discontinued use rather than using some hacky workaround. I ran it in a docker container on an undraid server with nothing else running on the server. I also tested it in ubuntu server.
by cube00 | 2026-02-28 03:45:51+00:00
If the redlines are the same how'd this deal get struck?

ChatGPT maker OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthropic when it comes to working with the Pentagon, an OpenAI spokesperson confirmed to CNN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/openai-has-same-redl...
by jasonni | 2026-02-28 03:45:55+00:00
The python MLX version of Parakeet indeed support streaming: https://github.com/senstella/parakeet-mlx
It requires modification of the inference algorithm. In this implementation, I see the author even uses a custom metal kernerl to get maximum performance.
The Parakeet model batch inference logic is simple. But for streaming, it may require some effort to get the best performance. It's not only the depencency issue.
by ProllyInfamous | 2026-02-28 03:46:06+00:00
Same.

Bugs me so much that my mid-sized US city posts official documentation (only) as google drive hyperlinks. I should not have to allow google products onto my networks just to get my recycling schedule, court documents, &c.

So instead, I go into city hall and ask them to print it out for me (they know who I am at this point).

----

My bank is literally right across the street from me; when their 2-factor garbage started preventing me from checking balances, online, I just started walking into their lobby every time I need my balance.
by margalabargala | 2026-02-28 03:47:11+00:00
Anthropic's stance is "we believe in the use of our tools, with safeguards, to assist the defense of the US".

So of course they would work with Palantir to deploy those tools.

The issue we're seeing is because the DoW decided they no longer like the "with safeguards" part of the above and is trying to force Anthropic to remove them.
by panick21 | 2026-02-28 03:47:36+00:00
This is just nonsense. First of all, the companies in the 1960s were all there for profit and all made profit. And the politicians in power back then also tried to get contracts to companies in their districts. Why do you think the NASA control center is in Houston?

SpaceX is on a fixed price contract. Dragging the project along is literally costing them money.

By literally any analysis you can do, you will see that in the last 15 years SpaceX was by far and away (its not close) the best contractor to NASA in terms of delivering what NASA wanted.

In fact, by far and away the project that have done the worst, are the project NASA does in the old style where they remain the main designers and operate and only work with private companies as builders. That's exactly why SLS is such a shit-show.
by arjie | 2026-02-28 03:47:49+00:00
Anthropic's adherence to their stated principles was never tested and their willingness to work with DoD made it seem like they didn't stand by them strongly so I wasn't happy with that. This action shows that they are willing to lose big contracts in order to stand by their stated principles. I like that.

In any case, I think I've said all there is for me to say on the subject and everyone seems to disagree. I'll take the hint.
by kortilla | 2026-02-28 03:47:59+00:00
This is extremely naive. A huge portion of industries are cyclical by the nature of the markets they target.

Mining, farming, oil, solar, construction, child care, elder care, etc all have waxing and waning demand.

It’s completely detached from reality to think that once someone is hired for a job that the job will be around for 10+ years.
by stinkbeetle | 2026-02-28 03:47:59+00:00
Obviously. These engineers and low level managers have an over-inflated sense of self-importance and an under-inflated understanding of how the world operates. It's actually quite terrifying to me that people like this would be the gatekeepers of how technology is to be used.

I have nothing against their intentions, I'm quite certain they believe they are good people doing good things.
by Yuudaiikoma | 2026-02-28 03:48:17+00:00
I built a tool that sends the same question to two Claude instances simultaneously. One has a vanilla system prompt, the other has 3 mathematical axioms from a dimensional ontology paper (~2K tokens) embedded in it.
The enhanced version never uses jargon from the paper. It just reasons differently — more structural, fewer lists, deeper "why" answers.
Example: "Why can't humans know their own lifespan?"

Vanilla: lists factors (genetics, complexity, unpredictable events)
Enhanced: "Like a point walking on a line — to see the whole line you'd need to step outside it, but as a point that's impossible. Not knowing your lifespan isn't a flaw, it's a structural condition of living inside time."

Same model (Sonnet). Same question. Only the system prompt differs.
by vineyardmike | 2026-02-28 03:49:31+00:00
Nah.

There is more to this story behind the scenes. The government wanted to show power and control over our companies and industries. They didn’t need those terms for any specific utility, they wanted to fight “woke” business that stood up to them.

Supposedly OpenAI had the same terms as Anthropic (according to SamA). Maybe they offered it cheaper and that’s why they agreed. Maybe it’s all the lobbying money from OpenAI that let the government look the other way. Maybe it’s all the PR announcements SamA and Trump do together.
by gritspants | 2026-02-28 03:49:44+00:00
My theory is that they both went through normal procurement processes. At some point, one of Palantir's forward deployed sales agents slapped someone's arm at the golph course and said, yes we can automously kill with our AI agents. Anthropic, having little to do with the kind of 'AI' in a use case that made sense for, declined.
by Jcampuzano2 | 2026-02-28 03:49:50+00:00
I would put bets on the issue probably being that it was pointed out that Anthropic's models were used to assist the raid in Venezuela, Anthropic then aggressively doubled down on their rules/principles and the DOD didn't like being called out on that so they lashed out, hard.

If theres anything this admin doesn't like, its being postured against or called out by literally anyone, especially in public.
by panick21 | 2026-02-28 03:50:00+00:00
I would agree. The heatshield is tricky. But they have shown they can survive without parts of the heatshield. But its a problem for rapid re-usability.

That said, I think Starship architecture can be useful even if this issue is not fully solved.

Starship can be much, much cheaper then SLS even if they throw away the upper stage.
by autoexec | 2026-02-28 03:50:08+00:00
> Without having someone knowledgeable enough to build and operate them, AI models are worthless to the C-suite.

The obvious solution is to use AI to build and operate them. If AI is as intelligent as the hype claims it shouldn't be an issue. It's not as if the goal wasn't to get rid of workers anyway. Why not start now?
by d--b | 2026-02-28 03:51:23+00:00
So the DoW is angry because it can’t use the model produced by what they call a woke radical left company?

And nobody in the administration is concerned at all that the model itself might be somewhat against their own views?

If it was so radically woke, wouldn’t the model, as used in fully autonomous weapons, be potentially harmful to ICE officers that the left considers as a threat to the American people?

Wouldn’t the mass surveillance of Americans be biased against the right?

These people are so dumb.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2026-02-28 03:51:30+00:00
Maybe Sam Altman said nicer things about Donald Trump. Maybe he promised that he would not revoke their API keys when Hegseth directs the military to seize ballots. Maybe he's jockeying for position to take over the government when AGI hits.

Ultimately, I don't know how much the specific reasons matter. Pete Hegseth must be removed from office, OpenAI must be destroyed for their betrayal of the US public, that's all there is to it.
by nextaccountic | 2026-02-28 03:51:33+00:00
There will be a sham election, like in Russia, but a sizable number of people will be unable to vote. Trump only need to steal the election in a few key districts

People like married women who changed their name, or foreign sounding people, they will be prevented to vote in 2026. ICE will guard polls to physically make people unable to reach the ballots
by acjohnson55 | 2026-02-28 03:51:50+00:00
I think it's fine to call it a shit move.

It's this part:

> Canning people when you do well is just a way to milk the cow that others raised for you.

I don't think people should reasonably expect to be employed if a company doesn't need them for its future plans.

> Plus it shows a blatant lack of imagination and foresight.

It seems to me Block has tried a whole bunch of different things. Imagination isn't their problem. I'm not deeply familiar with their business, but my hunch is that it's more that they're giving up on some of their pie in the sky ideas and consolidating on what's working.
by techblueberry | 2026-02-28 03:52:20+00:00
"AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. 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. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement."

So wait a second, the DoW let OpeAI put the exact same clauses in their contract, but Anthropic is a supply chain risk? What is going on?
by rescbr | 2026-02-28 03:52:25+00:00
Eh... Prohibiting access to MSN Messenger on school computers was one of the catalysts to me being a highly paid professional today.

Tell children they can't do X, some will find ways around it, tell their friends the workaround and maybe even get a profession out of it. Who knows, maybe one kid will find a text editor and a compiler laying around somewhere...

Fuck, I even tried to learn Russian by myself just to understand those old hacking forums. At least I got proficient in Cyrillic. I don't have children, but definitely I'd direct them to learn reading Chinese.
by SoftTalker | 2026-02-28 03:52:31+00:00
This is why I haven't started using passkeys. Managing them is looks complicated and I don't understand the ramifcations of what I'm doing.

Also a style nit, it's OK to use "he" or "she" pronouns in a contrived narrative. The "they/their" usage really detracted from the clarity of the example.
by arppacket | 2026-02-28 03:52:32+00:00
I bet Sam secretly pledged to DoD that the red lines were only temporary, for optics and to calm employees at the all hands meeting.

A few months down the line, OpenAI will quietly decide that their next model is safe enough for autonomous weapons, and remove their safeguard layer. The mass surveillance enablement might be an indirect deal through Palantir.
by SilverElfin | 2026-02-28 03:52:33+00:00
So basically Greg Brockman of OpenAI, currently the largest MAGA donor, used his bribe to make the government destroy his main competition? I’m absolutely cancelling ChatGPT and will tell everyone I know to cancel as well.

I also absolutely do not trust sleezy Sam Altman when he claims he has the same exact redlines as Anthropic:

> AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. 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. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.

If Hegseth and Trump attack Anthropic and sign a deal with OpenAI under the same restrictions, it means this is them corrupting free markets by picking which companies win. Maybe it’s at the behest of David Sacks, the corrupt AI czar who complained about lawfare throughout the Biden administration but now cheers on far worse lawfare.

So it’s either a government looking to surveil citizens illegally or a government that is deeply corrupt and is using its power to enrich some people above others.
by Robdel12 | 2026-02-28 03:53:50+00:00
Raise your hand if you actually read it or if you read the title and replied? I see a lot of comments that sure seem like they didn’t read it.

> 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. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.

IF this is true, it SHOULD be verifiable. So, we wait? I mean, I am a dummy, but that language doesn’t seem too washy too me? Either it’s a bold face lie and OpenAI burns because of it or it’s true and the Trump admin is going after the “left” AI company. Or whatever. My point is, someone smarter than me/us is going to fact check Sam’s claim.
by EarlKing | 2026-02-28 03:54:16+00:00
There are already "App Store Accountability Act"s present in Texas and Utah. I believe South Dakota is the other state that has one in their House right now. So no, this isn't California being a nanny state. Actually, California's is a lot better than the ones found in other states since literally you're allowed self-attestation of your age bracket (i.e. you don't have to supply an ID or some other such mechanism for independent verification). It's literally the equivalent of what they used to do with porn sites back in the day when they would ask you if you were over 18 -- and if you said yes, well, we tried! (Gold stars for everybody!)

In all seriousness, though, this is the only way where politicians get to pretend they did something and the rest of us get to avoid getting royally screwed. If parents were given dumbed-down versions of the tools that already exist to manage corporate-owned cell phones and laptops then there'd be a lot less for people to complain about (not that it would stop perpetually incompetent parents from pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for their own failings, of course, but at least the vast majority who AREN'T those people would be satisfied).
by steve_adams_86 | 2026-02-28 03:54:18+00:00
I'm out of the loop, but the last local tech job I had was with instant domains inc. That was great. These days I'm doing marine/geo science work with an NGO and I don't hear much about the local scene. A lot of the old players are still around, but there must be something new and interesting happening.

A coworker mentioned there's an autonomous marine sensing startup right in the downtown area. I want to look into that.

Any specific areas you want to buy in?
by harmonic18374 | 2026-02-28 03:55:04+00:00
I prescribe literally zero truth value to what Sam says. He will say whatever he needs to get ahead. It is honestly irritating to me that you and many others here seem to implicitly assume his messages are correlated with truth, doing his social engineering work for him, as if his word should adjust your priors even slightly.

I don't necessarily think he's lying, but there's so much obvious incentive for him to lie here (if only because his employees can save face).
by remarkEon | 2026-02-28 03:55:09+00:00
There is no evidence that this was a condition of the deal for working with the government on this. PRC already is a Total Surveillance state. The claim made by Anthropic is very specific, and it's that they feel that the law has not caught up to how AI can be used to aggregate very large amounts of data that can be obtained without a warrant through data brokers. The government already does this. Maybe you agree with Anthropic's point here, and it's certainly a good one, but they are building up a face-saving argument over what is already established precedent. An is vs. ought dichotomy and raising it as a redline is ridiculous.

At the end of the day I think many people simply want the United States to lose this race so they can feel good about their principles.
by eth0up | 2026-02-28 03:55:13+00:00
Symptoms? Can you cite any? I'm interested.

We already have curiosity, so you may skip that. But please elaborate. Note though, that so far, it's all been rather ad hominem and quite contrary to HN guidelines which encourage substance over vacuous statements and assumptions. At least make an argument.

To any observing:
this is solid evidence for the future of LLM abuse - question it (which will soon be nearly everything) in the right wrong way, and you will be pathologized. This is a first fundamental step in weaponization, albeit perhaps by coincidence, stupidity, or self interest here. But this is an advisable event to document. And thankfully HN is a sort of indelible tablet of the past.

Digly
or
Diglynot
by dataflow | 2026-02-28 03:55:27+00:00
> The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.

(a) Well, did both sides sign the agreement and is it actually effective? Or is it still sitting on someone's desk until it can get stalled long enough?

(b) What "agreement" even mean? Is it a legally enforceable contract, or just some sort of MoU or pinkie promise?

(c) If it's a legally enforceable contract, is it equally enforceable on all of their contracts, or just some? Do they not have existing contracts this would need to apply to?
by fourthark | 2026-02-28 03:56:18+00:00
Odd how this thread is a recapitulation of your experience with the LLM.

What is take from this is that it's pointless to try to find out why an LLM does something - it has no intentions. No life and no meaning, quite literally.

And if you try to dig you'll only activate other parts of its training, transcripts of people being interrogated - patients or prisoners, who knows. Scary and uncreative stuff.