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

Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#101

Post by vkou »

arrozconcosas wrote: post #69
otterley wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a fact, because it depends upon a subjective interpretation of the word “working.” Some might argue, for example, that if the President can cow Congress into subservience, then the three branches of government are no longer in balance with each other, and thus the constitution is no longer “working” as intended.

It can be true that the constitution is not working as intended, AND the US is a far cry from a country like Russian in terms of it operating as a constitutional republic / democracy. It is not subjective to say the US is more of a democratic country than Russia.

Rome wasn't built in a day, you don't go straight from 2024 to throwing people out of windows overnight.

But you get there by doing exactly what's being done on a daily basis.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#102

Post by baggy_trough »

curt15 wrote: post #100
baggy_trough wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should think that it was very obvious that America does not have a dictatorial government; this is hyperbole.

Does threatening to prosecute office supply store workers unless they print certain flyers count as the behavior of a dictator? That doesn't sound like the behavior of a government respecting the First Amendment.

I think it would count as a (very) small element of that.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#103

Post by LastTrain »

g42gregory wrote: post #60

No judgement here, but a US-based corporation refusing services to the US Government? While the terms of service are what they are, the US Government can withdraw its military contracts from Anthropic (or refuse future contracts if they don't have any so far). Or softly suggest to its own contractors to limit their business dealings with Anthropic. Then Anthropic will have hard time securing computing from NVIDIA, AW…

I am of an age where I read comments like this with my mouth agape. It is (was) perfectly normal to choose whether or not to do business with the government.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#104

Post by terminalshort »

otterley wrote: post #62
FortuneIIIPick wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It’s not a fact, because it depends upon a subjective interpretation of the word “working.” Some might argue, for example, that if the President can cow Congress into subservience, then the three branches of government are no longer in balance with each other, and thus the constitution is no longer “working” as intended.

Depends on how he cows them into subservience. If he uses the threat of electoral defeat for opposing him, that's totally legitimate. If he uses his position as commander in chief to threaten them with force, that's different.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#105

Post by terminalshort »

ricardobeat wrote: post #82
FortuneIIIPick wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How do you explain Trump unilaterally renaming the Ministry of Defense, without legislative approval? Is it a “working branch” if their constitutionally granted power is easily sidestepped?

I couldn't care less because it has always been and always will be the department of war whether or not the letterhead says "Department of Defense."

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#106

Post by mikeyouse »

impossiblefork wrote: post #46
giancarlostoro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, contracts will note that you will be notified of changes ahead of time, if it's a good faith contract and company that is.

Here in Sweden contracts are a specific thing, otherwise it's not a contract, so agreeing to conditions that can be changed by the other party simply isn't a contract and therefore is just a bullshit paper of very dubious legal validity. I know that some things like this are accepted in America, and I can't judge how it would be dealt with. I assume that contracts between companies and other sophisticated entities ar…

Yeah, I’ve signed dozens of contracts for services and some are explicit in the way you expect but a lot of software or SAAS type contracts have flexible terms that refer to TOS and privacy policies that are updated regularly. It’s uncommon that any of those things are changed in a way that either party is upset with so companies are generally okay signing up and assuming good faith.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#109

Post by TheServitor »

"Eventually, though, its politics could end up hurting its government business."

Good? What if, and I know how crazy this sounds, not using AI to surveil people was a more desirable goal than the success of yet another tech company at locking in government pork and subsidies?

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#110

Post by Loughla »

baggy_trough wrote: post #102
curt15 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does threatening to prosecute office supply store workers unless they print certain flyers count as the behavior of a dictator? That doesn't sound like the behavior of a government respecting the First Amendment.

I think it would count as a (very) small element of that.

Any single element of dictatorial rule is dictatorial rule. There is no space for any amount of that bullshit, regardless of how inane seeming it is.

A) Boundary testing. Small bites end up being large portions after enough are taken.

B) If I shit in 10 gallons of chocolate pudding, would you want to eat a bite of that pudding?

Post reply on HN