Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 475 posts

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#461

Post by bulbar »

colechristensen wrote: post #282
bulbar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sure they didn't lose governmental contracts because of it? Also, the current administration doesn't care much about the law but what Trump and his people like and dislike. They made it very clear that they don't like Anthropic, so they won't get any contracts now, this ruling doesn't really matter until Trump is out of office. None of this provable, of course. They even fired people for investigating the storm o…

>You sure they didn't lose governmental contracts because of it? I'm sure they got MORE government contracts because of it by turning themselves into headline news for weeks.

It was outright illegal to contract them after they were officially declared a risk. Afterwards it was clear that the highest level administration doesn't want them being contracted, an administration that's known to fire people that are only doing their job.

So being in the news for such things surely didn't help.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#462

Post by DaSHacka »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #369
dude250711 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Anthropic will tone down the hype in their PR. So there is hope.

AI companies no longer talking about AI risk is a good thing now?

No longer saying its some skynet-esque superintelligence in order to gain more relevance and mindshare in the eyes of average people is good, yes.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#463

Post by solenoid0937 »

DaSHacka wrote: post #462
solenoid0937 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies no longer talking about AI risk is a good thing now?

No longer saying its some skynet-esque superintelligence in order to gain more relevance and mindshare in the eyes of average people is good, yes.

I think you do not even have the faintest understanding of how good these models are getting and how quickly. It's not slowing down. That is exactly what they are building. You should make some friends at the labs to better inform yourself.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#464

Post by hvb2 »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #448
hvb2 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But China wants to make everything As long as a typical Chinese person is happy with a standard of living that is far below what an American expects, China will be way cheaper on labor. For most products, labor is a significant cost. For a lot of consumers, price is more important then where it's made. Maybe not what they say they think is important but when they actually decide. As a result, China will make almost…

But in what goods/currency/assets are other nations paying China for those goods if China does not want/need to import anything? Explain how this is supposed to work on any medium time frame.

Well so far I believe they've been buying us government bonds for example?

Also, haven't they been buying all kinds of stuff in Africa etcetera? Money doesn't have to flow from A to B and back to A. It might very well pass many more hops to complete the circle

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#465

Post by BowBun »

LoganDark wrote: post #87
BowBun wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why free trade is important. We had a decent setup where countries were specializing in their own manufacturing/services specialties, and then we all paid each other for what we needed. Then some greedy fools decided they needed more, and started trying to charge more on the way out or on the way in. Now the ones that specialized in the 'must haves' of today have insane leverage over everyone else. Then the '…

What are you saying? If people all choose a shitty version from China, there will be no market for a good local version and businesses will stop trying. The investment required to match China's manufacturing capability in any area is simply impossible unless you say it is an AI data center.

Real life isn't just "the shitty version from China", especially in 2026. Some of their products are better, some are worse. Nearly _all_ of our clothing comes from Asia, from low to high-end brands.

I'm saying there's value in specializing, not every country needs to be able to make everything. The real issue is people weaponizing their specializations, in this case specifically the USA with its stupid trade moves.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#466

Post by bobthepanda »

BurningFrog wrote: post #376
klik99 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true but every recent president has expanded powers, and had their party agree. Due to my age, I first noticed it with Bush then when Obama continued it, it felt weird to be fine with allowing more power in the executive branch when it’s someone you support, because that’ll add to the precedent for the next person who you don’t support. The presidency has come a long way since Washington and Trump 2.0 is a cl…

Just a guess, but maybe this is a result of the dysfunction in Congress. Someone has to get things done, and if Congress won't do it, maybe the President has to.

Realistically speaking, it is also because the nature of law and society has changed since the Constitution was drafted. Congress is not set up with so many experts in all the fields of society and cannot literally line by line specify all the regulations pertaining to, say, aviation.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#467

Post by bobthepanda »

expedition32 wrote: post #391
rootusrootus wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over. The people who called it a cult were basically right. Trump has overwhelming control over republican voters and has proven he can easily end the careers of republican politicians who oppose him. I do not recall a single politician of either party in my lifetime who has held this level of uncritical support. It will be fascin…

US politicians are all millionaires with excellent resumes. They have literally no excuse to be this cowardly. They will still be alive and rich if they go against Trump.

Unfortunately the current administration is also weaponizing the justice system and trying to suffocate its opponents in legal fees.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#468

Post by nullc »

frog42 wrote: post #38

So can they now sue the government and recoup their inflated theoretical losses to be paid out of tax revenue? It feels like any outcome here will have no negative effect on the major players actually involved.

If they what they missed out on was selling the government tokens at a loss ... do they now have to pay the government the value of what they would have lost? :P

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#469

Post by saturn8601 »

bruce511 wrote: post #442
saturn8601 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's 2026 and we are still debating this? You can debate all you want. If I have learned anything this past decade, its the internet has little bearing on how real life turns out. Just look at the sales numbers. In the US they are now slightly declining after years of steady growth. I watch auto industry shows that talk about how executives who bet their reputations on the EV transition at places like Ford and GM no…

The market in the US may be growing less strongly than elsewhere, but there are somewhat unique circumstances involved in that. One is political - Energy in the US is highly political, and the oil and coal lobbies are both influential and regressive. This leads to EVs becoming a political statement rather than an active choice. Second is size. Americans tend to drive further so range does matter. More range means mor…

We are talking about the US and Canada here, thats why I referenced American car companies and their executives. Im not denying at all that other countries are in different scenarios and this will have different adoption trajectories.

>The problem for US automakers is that by the time they see a local market, they'll be well behind the curve in development. I don't think a GM will be able to compete in product (never mind price) to a BYD et al.

It's possible that GM and Ford are dead companies already. Although at the same time, I'd expected Tesla to decline a lot faster than they really did post MAGA Musk. They've had massive duds and a lot of money spent. Yet in terms of the U.S. they are still ahead of the pack in technology development and sales are not abysmal which is insane given there have not been any new platforms introduced. In fact they have discontinued models.

Whether BYD overtakes the American market remains to be seen, and maybe even in Europe we might see eventual pushback as things get really dire with the local manufacturers. It's really too early to tell.

China has an oversupply of EVs. They have over 100 car companies right now competing to the very death, and only a small handful will survive. Those companies will be very strong. But due to the oversupply and the 25% youth unemployment rate, China has to find a way to offload these vehicles overseas or else they'll suffer significantly as well. So it's going to be interesting times, and I'm not too sure how things are going to play out long term.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#470

Post by jacobr1 »

zugi wrote: post #455
jonas21 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I guess it's good that corporations have free speech protections under the First Amendment. I often see it argued here that they shouldn't.

The legal short-hand saying that "corporations are people" is terrible PR. Non-legal-experts look at that and logically and correctly conclude "no, they're not", and think it's a ridiculous statement. The underlying legal principle is that groups of individuals banding together don't lose their fundamental rights. That applies to unions, non-profits, clubs, churches, political parties, small businesses, and yes, corp…

The main benefit to the fiction is limited liability. Without delegating to the corporation the responsibility for corporate actions would need to be defined as belonging to the owners, or all employees or some other structure where it all points to humans. If meta owes $18bn - I don't owe it - in the strong sense as a legal debt, as a shareholder in my 401k. The value of my ownership stake might go down (or up) but I don't have a shared legal obligation.
Post reply on HN