571–580 of 1001 posts
Every conservative needs to do some very deep, very serious soul-searching. As for me, as a hyper-progressive, I'm drawing up proposals for nationalizing real estate developers in order to force them to build new houses to sell below cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I like how you use the phrase social responsibilities to mean doing whatever the DoD wants which includes spying on the American people and operating autonomous drones to kill people. It's like saying they have social responsibilities to enable murder for people who have been shown to be unthinking murderers justifying the most pointless murders because they think it makes "their side" winners.
Topics like this are where I struggle with HN philosophy. Normally avoiding politics and ideology where possible, created higher quality and more interesting discussions. But how do you even begin to discuss that Tweet or this topic without talking about ideology and to contextualize this with other seemingly unrelated things currently going on in the US? I genuinely don't think I'm conversationally agile enough to b…
You can't discuss this topic without broaching the idea that the government is acting in bad faith — that they don't actually believe that Anthropic is a supply-chain risk and that this action is meant to punish the company. But this is in the HN guidelines regarding comments: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good fait…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn’t erase Claude, and even if it did Gemini and Codex are there to replace it. Even if a ton of companies have to switch over to an alternative, it won’t be catastrophic to the economy.
The stock market will be spooked if the US govt can willy nilly high trajectory darling of the AI world like this though. Who's next? OpenAI? Google? What if they refuse to allow the DoD to use AI with zero safeguards and Trump's goons decide they are also a "supply chain risk"?
The disconnect here for me is, I assume the DoW and Anthropic signed a contract at some point and that contract most likely stipulated that these are the things they can do and these are the things they can't do. I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original co…
I don't believe they can change the name to Department of War without an actor Congress. It remains the DoD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The writeup here[1] was pretty clear to me. > *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic. > *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one sa…
It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue. The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> If Anthropic doesn’t want the responsibilities of being a US company When did this suddenly become "businesses will do whatever the government says regardless of earlier contracts signed"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a waste of your effort to apply rational argument to the actions of a group that are in it for a shakedown.
[flagged]
Further, what law lets the government dictate what contracts a company signs? Anthropic refused to work with them. We had a whole Supreme Court case about refusing working with customers.