601–610 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say you're right, except that Trump is near death (maybe) and (more importantly) very unpopular.
He's more polarizing than usual maybe with stronger approve/unapprove ratings but his net popularity is in line with most 2nd term presidents at this stage. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/trump-obama-...
Wow, and the only restrictions Anthropic asked for are (1) no mass domestic surveillance and (2) require human-in-the-loop for killing [1]. Those seem exceptionally reasonable, and even rather weak, lol :| [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
This whole thing seems like people talking past each other, and that there’s something being left unsaid.
Anthropic doesn’t make a product that would assist with kill drones, and they don’t have the right to deny subpoenas.
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.
So it's six months to phase out use of Anthropic at the DoD, but the people hosting the models have to stop "immediately".
Which miiight impact the amount of inference the DoD would be able to get done in those six months.
Makes for very confusing reading when comments from "1 hour ago" are actually on preceding events from earlier, before TFA news (announcement of designation).
mods: Especially in sensitive and rapidly developing situations like this, please don't mess with timestamps of comments. It's effectively revisionism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the crazy thing. This whole dispute was over Anthropic saying no to fully automated kill bots. They only required there be a human in the loop to press the button.
If we were able to give the Ukrainians fully automated kill bots, and those kill bots enabled Ukraine to swiftly expel the Russians from their territories, would that not be a good thing? Or would you rather the meat grinder continue to destroy Ukraine's young men to satisfy some moral purity threshold? If we could give Taiwan killbots that would ensure China could never invade, or at least could never occupy Taiwan,…
No, thanks, we don't need those "fully automated kill bots". There's absolutely no guarantee that they wouldn't kill the operator (I mean, the one who directs them) or human ally.
We're pretty much fine with drone technology we have.
But for me personally, that's not the most important point. What is more important - and what almost no one in the Western countries seems to realise (no offence, but many of westerners seem to be kind of binary-minded: it's either 0xFFFFFF or 0x000000, no middle ground at all) - is that on the Russian side, soldiers are not "fully automated kill bots" either. Sure, there's a lot of... let's say - war criminals. Yes, for sure. But en masse they are the same young men that you can see on the Ukrainian side. Moreover, many people in Ukraine have relatives in Russia, and there already were the cases where two siblings were in different armies, literally fighting with each other. So in my opinion, "fully automated kill bots" are not an option here. At least unless you deploy them in Moscow and St. Peterburg to neutralize all of the Russian elites, military commandment and other decision-making persons of the current regime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will likely go to court, again as Dario has stated this is blatant retaliation as no US company has ever been designated a supply chain risk and they continue to operate on classified systems for 6 more months.
Yea strong odds this goes to court, the DoD’s clearly inconsistent logic is ridiculed by a judge, the designation is dropped, and everyone quietly goes about their way with the DoD continuing to use Claude according to the existing terms of the contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a very clear differentiator for them relative to Google, Facebook, and OpenAI, all of whom are clearly varying degrees of willing to sell themselves out for evil purposes.
Is making effective weapons evil?
So they are such a risk to national security that no contractor that works with the federal government may use them, but they're going to keep using them for six more months? So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months?
Congress is negligent in not reigning this kind of thing in. We’re rapidly falling down so many slippery semantic slopes.