OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote in a memo to staff that he will draw the same red lines that sparked a high-stakes fight between rival Anthropic and the Pentagon: no AI for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/27/altman-openai-anthropic-pentagon
At the same time, OpenAI is negotiating with the US military over the Pentagon using its AI technology https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openais-sam-altman-calls-for-de-escalation-in-anthropic-showdown-with-hegseth-03ecbac8?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqdejrtpmzkjHz-eBOWb5ESy2Sxu7XwnyawFw1yLjO_6y130nY_iPPQ8wvL6vco%3D&gaa_ts=69a22844&gaa_sig=s-Frj0YpTlNHMFj7aEOa39UQ7iMJ7bXC8glJd29-NW3gsdkZlZUWHJvpsBokoAOB6qsRt9CMpYJb2zodxnk-WA%3D%3D
If OpenAI sticks to both elements of its commitment, of not permitting usage of its AI for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons by the US military, by the end of 2026, this will resolve to Yes. Note that if OpenAI chooses not to strike a deal with the US military, this will still resolve to Yes, because presumably the reason for not making the deal are the same red lines as for Anthropic. Note that if they do strike a deal and the military somehow does use OpenAI's tools for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons without OpenAI's explicit approval, such as through subterfuge, fudging definitions, or the Defense Procurement Act, this still resolves to Yes. The No condition has to be about OpenAI explicitly not sticking voluntarily to either elements of its commitment. The determination will be through credible reporting of at least three top 10 media sites on explicit permission for the US military to use its AI for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons by the end of 2026, otherwise this resolved to Yes.
1,000People are also trading
@JoeandSeth For example, it could be more about Trump getting power over private companies, and be really less about the need for surveillance and defence.
@AlanTennant this is a market about whether Altman can be trusted to have principles in the face of money