Who let Elon in?

Were they the same restrictions though?

OpenAI just said no surveillance of U.S. persons.

Anthropic could have gone further; I think it's likely they did.

There are three restrictions:

> No use of OpenAI technology for mass domestic surveillance.

> No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems.

> No use of OpenAI technology for high-stakes automated decisions (e.g. systems such as “social credit”).

These are stronger than Anthropic's restrictions (https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war), as OpenAI says themselves: "We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s. [...] Based on what we know, we believe our contract provides better guarantees and more responsible safeguards than earlier agreements, including Anthropic’s original contract."

Edit: I was wrong, see my original comment. Sorry.

The article only cites language for surveillance.

The other stuff...there's zero citations or quotes. Meaning that OpenAI could be having their cake and eating it too, winning a public victory, with no validation on the actual language, consequences, or enforcement.

I've literally never seen that.

Unless it was in a very specific investment/exit/valuation related sense.

YC is an investor that turns money into more money, and claims to be good at that. It doesn't claim to be good at anything else.

It's like people have never been to a city council meeting or know how they or their schedules operate.

The time was for speaking about building development codes.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, public discussions are not open-mic night.

public

discussions

I guess I don't follow.

Yes, you don't.

We don't live in a world where words literally mean what they say without nuance or context. We live in a world where "public discussion" does not mean "all the people who want to talk about a topic of interest can disrupt a city business meeting". We also live in a world where the city council can table (US meaning) a discussion by sending it to committee.

Have you been to city council meetings, especially in places like Berkeley? They often go well past midnight and are filled with people just endlessly postponing important votes. These are business meetings that follow an agenda and the leaders have a significant amount of power to move the process along.

You're entitled to freedom of speech. You're not entitled to an audience. If the community is frustrated with the city council's decisions on public comments sections they can vote for different city council members.

While the discussions on council actions are accessible to the public, they have specific topics.

You can't just walk up and start promoting your coffee bar, or complain about how loud the neighbor’s dog are.

You can speak out about all those things -- the First Amendment protects that -- but not at whatever public city council meeting you want.

Have you not heard similar from parents/teachers/chaperons?

"I will take as long as I need, to get you to comply. Your resistance doesn't make this go away, it just prolongs the inevitable."

Resistance may be futile, but resistance is also moral duty.

So it's a message aimed at gullible children. If it were true, they wouldn't announce it. Announcing it, in the hope you'll go quietly, is admitting out loud that they would in fact prefer precisely that, and that they don't have unlimited time and energy to spend on you.

Humans aren't always rational actors. Many people are delighted by having the power to inflict fear and pain upon others. Policing jobs seem to structurally attract such people, I've seen incidents and scandals of this nature in many places.

I feel like you may be intentionally dense, but in case you aren't.

Someone can have more than enough time and energy for a task, but prefer to do other tasks as well.

ODIC cannot operate with a private-network IdP.

SAML can.

In general, SAML is complicated because (1) auth is complicated (2) XML is complicated (3) canonicalization/signatures are complicated.

Some of those are unforced errors, some are historical facts.

> ODIC cannot operate with a private-network IdP

Why not? The flow can be entirely client side. OpenID discovery and PAR is optional and those would require direct connections

Yes, you could develop a client-side (JavaScript) application to do this.

SAML does not require JavaScript to do that.

It's a SPA (see the example cards/pages).

So technically slightly more.