We would ask for the contract not to cover use that is unlawful. Examples of unlawful use: domestic surveillance, autonomous offensive weapons.
As in, surveillance/autonomous weapons are framed as instances of unlawful use (“such as”). If we accept that framing, then any contractual language that merely says “no unlawful use” would technically cover them, even if it doesn’t mention those items explicitly. The issue is that the law may be forbidding “domestic surveillance” and “autonomous weapons” under definitions of those terms that are importantly narrower than the custom (?) definitions on which Anthropic is insisting.
(Though I don’t know that digging this deeply into Altman’s Exact Words here makes sense. This may have just been a throwaway statement, without this heavy wording-optimization.)
Surely he meant something by “unsuited to cloud deployments”?
I wasn’t sure what this meant, but I asked Claude, and it sounds like this is probably a reference to confidential military operations that require airgapping. This seems like a technical issue that has basically nothing to do with ethics, suggesting that the “ethical” part routes entirely through the “no unlawful use” part.
The part where Altman says “AI should not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons [...] These are our main red lines” sounds pretty unambiguous, but maybe this is easier to wriggle out of than a concrete statement about the contract OpenAI will request.
I don’t see why it would be difficult to get data about movement patterns of individual people brought from data brokers into an airgapped environment.
Why? You put the data on a hard drive and then put the hard drive into your airgapped environment.
Even if we leave out the data brought from data brokers, the US military has plenty of spy satellites. Given the permission for doing foreign surveillance, there’s a good chance that they are currently running agents in the Palantir system that analyze satellite imagery (and other sensor information) for foreign surveillance.
Given that a lot of those surveillance satellites aren’t geostationary, they are likely already flying over the US and that data is available for analysis already.
I’m confused—I parsed Altman’s statement as:
Isn’t this equivalent to what Anthropic wants?
My parsing is:
As in, surveillance/autonomous weapons are framed as instances of unlawful use (“such as”). If we accept that framing, then any contractual language that merely says “no unlawful use” would technically cover them, even if it doesn’t mention those items explicitly. The issue is that the law may be forbidding “domestic surveillance” and “autonomous weapons” under definitions of those terms that are importantly narrower than the custom (?) definitions on which Anthropic is insisting.
(Though I don’t know that digging this deeply into Altman’s Exact Words here makes sense. This may have just been a throwaway statement, without this heavy wording-optimization.)
Surely he meant something by “unsuited to cloud deployments”?
I wasn’t sure what this meant, but I asked Claude, and it sounds like this is probably a reference to confidential military operations that require airgapping. This seems like a technical issue that has basically nothing to do with ethics, suggesting that the “ethical” part routes entirely through the “no unlawful use” part.
The part where Altman says “AI should not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons [...] These are our main red lines” sounds pretty unambiguous, but maybe this is easier to wriggle out of than a concrete statement about the contract OpenAI will request.
Seems I called it?
I don’t see why it would be difficult to get data about movement patterns of individual people brought from data brokers into an airgapped environment.
The issue is that LLMs that run on the cloud can’t interact with airgapped data.
Why? You put the data on a hard drive and then put the hard drive into your airgapped environment.
Even if we leave out the data brought from data brokers, the US military has plenty of spy satellites. Given the permission for doing foreign surveillance, there’s a good chance that they are currently running agents in the Palantir system that analyze satellite imagery (and other sensor information) for foreign surveillance.
Given that a lot of those surveillance satellites aren’t geostationary, they are likely already flying over the US and that data is available for analysis already.