HN

Comments (280)

• Menu

  Imnimo
  I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
• Menu

  blueblisters
  My knee-jerk reaction to this was looks like an opportunistic maneuver that Sam is known for and I'm considering canceling my subscriptions and business with OpenAIBut what's the most charitable / objective interpretation of this?For example - https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230Does it suggest that determination of "lawful use" and Dario's concerns falls upon the government, not the AI provider?Other folks have claimed that Anthropic planned to burn the contentious redlines into Claude's constitution.Update: I have cancelled my subscriptions until OpenAI clarifies the situation. From an alignment perspective Anthropic's stand seems like the correct long-term approach. And at least some AI researchers appear to agree.
• gabeh
  It's only $200 from me for the remainder of the year but you're not getting it anymore OpenAI. Voting with my wallet tonight. Really sad, I've followed OpenAI for years, way before ChatGPT. It's just too hard to true up my values with how they've behaved recently. This sucks. Goodnight everyone.
• Menu

  quantumwannabe
  More details on the difference between the OpenAI and Anthropic contracts from one of the Under Secretaries of State:>The axios article doesn’t have much detail and this is DoW’s decision, not mine. But if the contract defines the guardrails with reference to legal constraints (e.g. mass surveillance in contravention of specific authorities) rather than based on the purely subjective conditions included in Anthropic’s TOS, then yes. This, btw, was a compromise offered to—and rejected by—Anthropic.https://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027566426970530135> For the avoidance of doubt, the OpenAI - @DeptofWar contract flows from the touchstone of “all lawful use” that DoW has rightfully insisted upon & xAI agreed to. But as Sam explained, it references certain existing legal authorities and includes certain mutually agreed upon safety mechanisms. This, again, is a compromise that Anthropic was offered, and rejected.> Even if the substantive issues are the same there is a huge difference between (1) memorializing specific safety concerns by reference to particular legal and policy authorities, which are products of our constitutional and political system, and (2) insisting upon a set of prudential constraints subject to the interpretation of a private company and CEO. As we have been saying, the question is fundamental—who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems.> It is a great day for both America’s national security and AI leadership that two of our leading labs, OAI and xAI have reached the patriotic and correct answer herehttps://x.com/UnderSecretaryF/status/2027594072811098230
• Menu

  cube00
  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...
• spprashant
  Just uninstalled the app and canceled subscription. OpenAI can't justify their insane valuation without an user base. Especially when there are capable models elsewhere.
• fiatpandas
  >human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systemsSo there’s the difference, and an erasure of a red line. OpenAI is good with autonomous weapon systems. Requiring human responsibility isn’t saying much. Theres already military courts, rules of engagement, and international rules of war.
• Menu

  push0ret
  So they agreed to the same red lines that had earlier led to the fallout with Anthropic? Kind of strange.
• Menu

  deaux
  All OpenAI employees during the board revolt that vouched for sama's return are personally responsible.
• Menu

  Jcampuzano2
  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.
• Menu

  davidw
  We need some kind of group like "tech people with morals". I'm done with these people and their corruption and garbage.
• tintor
  Difference from Anthropic's deal is:- OpenAI is ok with use of their AI for autonomous weapons, as long as there is "human responsibility"- Anthropic is not ok with use of their AI for autonomous weapons
• ttrashh
  Cancel your subscription. It's the least you can do.
• pbnjay
  I had kept my Plus subscription just because I was lazy, and it was inexpensive and convenient… but this turn definitely helped me get off the fence. I am exporting and deleting my data now, and the cancellation is already done.
• redml
  regardless of your opinion of ai in government, sam could not have picked a worse way for optics to swoop in and make a deal. it just looks incredibly bad.
• slibhb
  I'm unsure how to feel about this whole dust-up. It doesn't seem like much has changed in substance. Maybe OpenAI outmaneuvered Anthropic behind the scenes. Possibly Anthropic was seen as not behaving deferentially enough towards the government. But this administration has proven comically corrupt, so it wouldn't surprise me if money was involved. Will be interested to see what journalists turn up.
• pu_pe
  So this week we've learned that even the government asseses Anthropic has the better model, and that OpenAI leadership has no concern for safety whatsoever.
• Menu

  jordanscales
  This is awkward? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47188473
• Menu

  AbstractH24
  It’s amazing how quickly the players keep shifting here.Yesterday and the day before sentiment seemed to be focused on “Anthropic selling out”, then that shifted to “Anthropic holds true to its principles in a David vs Goliath” and “the industry will rally around one another for the greater good.” But suddenly we’re seeing a new narrative of “Evil OpenAI swoops in to make a deal with the devil.”Reminds of that weekend where Sam Altman lost control of OpenAI.
• mmanfrin
  Absolute disgrace of a person and organization.
• iainctduncan
  Did anyone ever doubt sama would just follow the money?weasels gonna weasel
• Menu

  operator_nil
  So does this mean that OpenAI will give whatever the DoD asks for and they will pinky swear that it won’t be used for mass surveillance and autonomous killing machines?
• Menu

  rich_sasha
  Is the Pentagon signing a EULA confirming all their data will now be used, anonymised, for improving the service?
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  deadbolt
  Choosing to go along with calling it the "Department of War" tells you all you need to know.
• matsemann
  From an open non-profit to a war machine in such a short time is baffling.
• Menu

  corford
  If you're unhappy with this, an immediate way to signal it is with your wallet. In my case I've just uninstalled chatgpt from my phone, cancelled my subscription and will up my spend with anthropic.
• levanten
  Funny that these are the same people that have been blasting the alarm on dangers of AI singularity. Now they cannot wait to put their tools in weapons.
• wannabe_loser
  I guess we aren't curing cancer with ai anymore
• e40
  This is how OpenAI gets bailed out in an AI crash, too big to fail becomes too important to fail.
• Menu

  impulser_
  For the people that don't understand how they got a deal with the same redlines, it probably because OpenAI agreed to not question them. The safeguards are there, both parties agree now fuck off and let us use your model how we see fit.Anthropic probably made the mistake of questioning the Military's activities related to Claude after the Venezuela mission and wanted reassurance that the model wouldn't be used for the redlines, and the military didn't like this and told them we aren't using your models unless you agree to not question us and then the back and forth started.In the end, we will probably have both OpenAI and Anthropic providing AI to the military and that's a good thing. I don't think they will keep the supply chain risk on Anthropic for more than a week.
• jdiaz97
  cancelling my openai subscription, they're gonna miss my 20 USD
• arendtio
  So now we are waiting for Anthropic to explain to us what Sam agreed to and what they rejected.On the surface, it looks like both rejected 'domestic mass surveillance' and 'autonomous weapon systems', but there seem to be important differences in the fine print, since one company is being labeled a 'supply chain risk' while the other 'reached the patriotic and correct answer'.One explanation would be that the DoW changed its demands, but I doubt that. Instead, I believe OpenAI found a loophole that allows those cases under certain conditions.
• insane_dreamer
  I'm never using an OpenAI model or Codex ever again. Period. Idaf whether it scores better than Claude on benchmarks or not.This is a red line for me. It's clear OpenAI has zero values and will give Hesgeth whatever he wants in exchange for $$$.https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/openai-reaches...
• Menu

  LarsDu88
  China has evacuated its embassies in Iran.This is really about the imminent strike on Iran which is now super telegraphed. They are gonna use ChatGPT for target selection, and the likely outcome is that it will fuck things up and a bunch of civilians are going to die because of this decision.When this happens, Altman will go from being merely a drifter to having blood on his hands.
• m4rtink
  So this is indeed how OpenAI survives (a little bit longer ?) - government bailout.
• croes
  Is OpenAI and ChatGPT nie a national security threat for other countries?
• Menu

  jstummbillig
  > Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement.Under normal circumstances, that would seem really plausible. But given how far Trump continues to go just out of spite and to project power, it actually is the opposite.I am fully prepared to believe that they got absolutely nothing else out of it (to date).
• AmericanOP
  Instant uninstall.
• interestpiqued
  What a snake
• Menu

  straydusk
  I know the reaction to this, if you're a rational observer, is "OpenAI have cut corners or made concessions that Anthropic did not, that's the only thing that makes sense."However, if you live in the US and pay a passing attention to our idiotic politics, you know this is right out of the Trump playbook. It goes like this:* Make a negotiation personal* Emotionally lash out and kill the negotiation* Complete a worse or similar deal, with a worse or similar party* Celebrate your worse deal as a better dealImportantly, you must waste enormous time and resources to secure nothing of substance.That's why I actually believe that OpenAI will meet the same bar Anthropic did, at least for now. Will they continue to, in the same way Anthropic would have? Seems unlikely, but we'll see.
• dataflow
  This seems full of loopholes.> The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.(1) 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?(2) What does "agreement" even mean? Is it a legally enforceable contract, or just some sort of MoU or pinkie promise?(3) 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?(4) What does "reflects them in law and policy" even mean? Since when does DoW make laws, and in what sense do their laws reflect whatever the agreement was? Are these laws he can point to so everyone else can see? Can he at least copy-paste the exact sentences the government agreed to?
• elAhmo
  All that money and not a single ounce of integrity.
• Menu

  mkozlows
  So there are two possibilities here:1. There's no substantive change. Hegseth/Trump just wanted to punish Anthropic for standing up to them, even if it didn't get them anything else today -- establishing a chilling effect for the future has some value for them in this case, after all. And OpenAI was willing to help them do that, despite earlier claiming that they stood behind Anthropic's decisions.2. There is a substantive change. Despite Altman's words, they have a tacit understanding that OpenAI won't really enforce those terms, or that they'll allow them to be modified some time in the future when attention has moved on elsewhere.Either way, it makes Altman look slimy, and OpenAI has aligned with Trump against Anthropic in a place where Anthropic made a correct principled stand. It's been clear for a while that Anthropic has more ethics than OpenAI, but this is more naked than any previous example.
• looksjjhg
  So it’s personal basically
• d--b
  At this stage, everything OpenAi does is to try to keep investors investing.They’re willing to let their brand go to trash for this government contract.Pretty much every American is standing with Anthropic on this. No one left or right wants mass surveillance and terminators. In fact, no one in the world wants this, except the US military.But Altman seems so desperate to keep the cash coming he’s ready to do anything.
• hnthrowaway0315
  Ah, is it the time when Skynet starts to manifest itself...
• anon
  undefined
• rvz
  Not a surprise here, that letter was a trap for OpenAI employees who filled it out with their names on it. [0]The ones that did might as well leave. But there was no open letter when the first military contract was signed. [1] Now there is one?[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47176170[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-mi...
• superkuh
  I have just canceled all services and deleted my account with OpenAI. They can get money from the current US regime but I will not contribute to their violations of the constitution.
• utopiah
  Oh yeah, from the company which raison d'etre was being open and being good.shocked pikachu faceCome on by now we all know the only thing Altman (who else is still at OpenAI from the start?) wants it more money and more power, it doesn't really matter how.
• anon
  undefined
• tayo42
  How do llms get used in either survalience or for autonomous weapons. Using written English seems so inefficient?
• camillomiller
  Sam Altman is this. Sam Altman needs to be stopped.
• outside1234
  Screw OpenAI. Never opening that app again or using one of their models.
• riazrizvi
  Refreshing sanity.
• robertwt7
  How did they agree to the terms that were initially put forward by Anthropic but with OpenAI? Surely there’s a catch here. Or is it just Sam negotiation skill?
• drivebyhooting
  In my experience ChatGPT is the most sanctimonious of the leading models.When I need advice for my clandestine operations I always reach for Grok.
• apexalpha
  "We will not be divided!"They got divided 12 hours later, lol.
• Uptrenda
  is there a single thing left that altman promised that he hasn't broken with this company...
• skygazer
  Perhaps Trump's DOD objects specifically to Anthropic models themselves declining to do immoral and illegal things, and not something just stipulated in an ignorable contract. That would give room for Sam to throw some public CYA into a contract, while neutering model safety to their requirements.
• dakolli
  They're pretending like they didn't enter into this agreement last January and are completely entrenched in intelligence programs already. They are trying to make it look like they are stepping up in a time of need (time of need for the DoD), in reality they sold their soul to intelligence and the military a year ago.I posted about this here after Sam made his tweet:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189756Source: https://defensescoop.com/2025/01/16/openais-gpt-4o-gets-gree...
• t0lo
  Snakes- as predicted
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  transcriptase
  Sam must not be aware of what happened to any business or foreign nation/leader considered outwardly friendly to the first Trump administration when the democrats regained control in 2020.
• midnitewarrior
  Opportunism without principles at its finest.
• verdverm
  If the "safety stack" (guardrails) bit is true, it's the exact opposite of their beef with Anthropic... which is not surprising given who's running the US right now.I always assumed those folks need a way to look strong with their base for a media moment over equitable application of the policies or law.
• anon
  undefined
• gaigalas
  We really need a plan for the scenario in which the US loses the trade war and decides to go homicidal AI on the whole world. Like, help them recover or something.
• AmericanOP
  Department of War just killed OpenAI's brand
• SilverElfin
  So basically Greg Brockman of OpenAI, currently the largest MAGA PAC 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.
• saos
  Musk 100% right about this guy
• 0xfedbee
  Honestly not even surprised. What else could you expect from a zionist?
• romulussilvia
  I wonder if this will cause this to save open ai from the bubble! i am sure i am wrong;-)
• Menu

  jackyli02
  SA is a real weasel lol. Acted like he stood behind Anthropic's principles just to announce the deal with DoW a few hours later.
• Menu

  lefrenchy
  This will backfire on Sam someday, he’s just a pawn in the agenda of the Trump admin.
• cwyers
  There's a lot of people in this thread that assume that Sam Altman is the one who is being dishonest here, and I kind of understand, but the other two parties who could just as easily be lying are Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump, and of the three of them if you think sama is the _most_ likely to lie I feel like you have not been paying attention.
• mrcwinn
  So nice of him! I am sure he believes they should offer these terms to all competitors.HN: if you continue to subscribe to OpenAI, if you use it at your startup, you’re no better than the tech bros you often criticize. This is not surprising but beyond shady.
• mrcwinn
  Hey dang I know I’m not allowed to say this due to community guidelines, but Sam Altman is a lying sack of shit.
• Menu

  eoskx
  "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network.In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome.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.We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only.We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements.We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place."
• aichen_dev
  [dead]
• shablulman
  [dead]
• Menu

  mythz
  Sam is just about the least trustworthy person in AI, I don't trust his words as face value and I consider these weasel words:> prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility *for the use of force*
• skeledrew
  > We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they shouldA bold statement. It would appear they've definitively solved prompt injection and all the other ills that LLMs have been susceptible to. And forgot to tell the world about it./s
• Menu

  slopinthebag
  [flagged]
• calvinmorrison
  perhaps us mere mortals should petition our lawmakers to ban mass surveillance.
• Menu

  Robdel12
  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.
• anon
  undefined