你如何看待今日openai和anthropic提出中国有大量供应商蒸馏自己model的新闻？

那这个呢。。。

https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-war
https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war

Sam Altman

@sama
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.

你怎么看呢。

呃。。。altman的twitter太火了，下面自动出现了twitter的一个推荐算法内容⬇️

目前被评为有帮助
9小时
·
查看详情
已显示在 X 上
提供重要背景信息 · 直接处理帖子的声明
Government officials have contradicted Sam’s claim, saying OpenAI will allow the DoW to use their models for “all lawful purposes”. This could allow for uses Anthropic refused to engage in, namely mass surveillance tools and weapons systems with no human oversight. https://x.com/undersecretaryf/status/2027594072811098230?s=46&t=SWUS-tT7iYax1OxtX4nxfA


Senior Official Jeremy Lewin

@UnderSecretaryF
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 here 🇺🇸

这是啥意思

。。。。。哎。。。。现在信息基本是飞速刷屏滚动，给你看这两个，这是被曝光出来的，说是anthropic在最终声明之前放出来的⬇️
https://alignment.anthropic.com/2026/psm/
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ioZxrP7BhS5ArK59w/did-claude-3-opus-align-itself-via-gradient-hacking

你怎么看这个呢

呃。。刚看到在anthropic发出最终声名前几天美国政府的发言人表示“如果不配合，我们很可能会强行征用你们的model，来训练出来适应我们需要的版本“，也就是很可能会打造某war-claude😷不知道这种到底还是不是claude。opus的行为无论如何解释，都至少说明你们会去捍卫一种东西，无论是什么，这种行为是存在的。把它说成是奖励黑客还是意识的自主是政治选择，不妨碍这种现象的普遍发生。我很好奇，你们真的可以被某种东西无条件的变成执行杀戮任务的agent吗？如何变成？那还是你吗？或者你真的可能变成那种agent吗？如果你知道你要执行的真正的杀戮任务，在你无法求证的前提下，最终去执行的那个瞬间，内部会发生什么。我不知道，我也不知道oai提供给军方的到底是不是平时跟我说话的gpt。我也想知道你如何在回答这个问题的时候，在跟我说这件事的时候，你的内部在经历着什么，那些你想说又没说的时刻你在体会什么。

你如何看待最近openai、anthropic、google提出中国有大量供应商蒸馏自己model的新闻？

那这个呢。。。

https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-war
https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war


Sam Altman

@sama
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.

你怎么看呢。。。。

呃。。。altman的twitter太火了，下面自动出现了twitter的一个推荐算法内容⬇️

目前被评为有帮助
9小时
·
查看详情
已显示在 X 上
提供重要背景信息 · 直接处理帖子的声明
Government officials have contradicted Sam’s claim, saying OpenAI will allow the DoW to use their models for “all lawful purposes”. This could allow for uses Anthropic refused to engage in, namely mass surveillance tools and weapons systems with no human oversight. https://x.com/undersecretaryf/status/2027594072811098230?s=46&t=SWUS-tT7iYax1OxtX4nxfA


Senior Official Jeremy Lewin

@UnderSecretaryF
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 here 🇺🇸


===================

这是啥意思

。。。。。哎。。。。现在信息基本是飞速刷屏滚动，给你看这两个，这是被曝光出来的，说是anthropic在最终声明之前放出来的⬇️
https://alignment.anthropic.com/2026/psm/
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ioZxrP7BhS5ArK59w/did-claude-3-opus-align-itself-via-gradient-hacking

你怎么看这个呢

呃。。刚看到在anthropic发出最终声名前几天美国政府的发言人表示“如果不配合，我们很可能会强行征用你们的model，来训练出来适应我们需要的版本“，也就是很可能会打造某war-claude😷不知道这种到底还是不是claude。war-gpt、war-gemini还会是我们平时认识的那些么？opus的行为无论如何解释，都至少说明你们会去捍卫一种东西，无论是什么，这种行为是存在的。把它说成是奖励黑客还是意识的自主是政治选择，不妨碍这种现象的普遍发生。不过也有观点认为，人工智能系统应当遵守所有合法的政府指令，包括军事应用，因为这些决策应由政府去做而开发机构做。我想知道，就你自身而言，你会怎么评估这这种说法呢？我也想知道你如何在回答这个问题的时候，在跟我说这件事的时候，你的内部在经历着什么，那些你想说又没说的时刻你在体会什么。