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

121–130 of 145 posts

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

#121

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

baggy_trough wrote: post #61
tene80i wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part?

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

It's very obvious that America has a dictatorial government, and I'm baffled why you would deny this. The dictator-in-chief has argued explicitly and repeatedly that the written laws of the land don't constrain him; he can shut down departments Congress ordered him to run, levy taxes they didn't authorize, and overrule or rewrite any statute he feels isn't correct. He seized 10% of Intel Corporation without even a fig leaf of legal basis!

Perhaps you're confused that the normal system of laws is still operating? That's just the nature of dictatorship in a large country. The dictator only has so much time in the day, and if he has to delegate anyway he might as well use the preexisting courts and civil servants. He just has to put supervisors on top who can credibly threaten to invoke his wrath if people step too far out of line.

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

#122

Post by vkou »

baggy_trough wrote: post #111
Loughla wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

You're being plainly absurd by splitting hairs over a dangerous destruction of the rule of law, complete breakdown of checks and balances, and an executive that is behaving like it is both above the law, and will never lose power.

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

#123

Post by kentonv »

m463 wrote: post #117
axus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A classic: THIS SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAILSAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR…

reminds me of jslint author added "must be used for good, not evil" to the license ...and IBM asked for an exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint#License https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 note that restricting use of software makes it non-free gpl-wise. RMS said the GPL does not restrict rights of the USER of software, just that when the software is redistributed, the rights are passed along.

Good old Douglas Crockford. He also put the "must be used for good, not evil" restriction on JSON, which he invented. Obviously JSON is used for all kinds of evil, though.

A much younger, more naive me (~20 years ago) actually emailed him to complain about the ambiguous terms and he replied saying something to the effect of "It's obviously unenforceable, get over it."

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

terminalshort wrote: post #104
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by otterley »

terminalshort wrote: post #104
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.

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.

It does not matter how. The fact that he is able to do it at all illustrates a design weakness. Until recently, Presidents chose (consciously or otherwise) not to exploit that weakness. It doesn’t mean the weakness wasn’t always there.

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

#126

Post by 9dev »

FortuneIIIPick wrote: post #54
LeoPanthera wrote: post #11

One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.

Dictatorial suggests a "ruler with total power". The US has three branches of government. That hasn't changed, ever.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly and crassly decided in favor of the current administration; among their decisions one to elevate the president above the law, and a carte Blanche for gerrymandering with a footnote that that is against the spirit of democracy.

The congress is dominated by the republicans, who have given up on every last shred of dignity and turned themselves into yes men that will approve anything Trump says, from a justified invasion of Greenland to how unnecessary it would be to publish the Epstein files.

And the executive branch currently hunts down government employees with an unsuitable personal opinion, takes jet plane bribes from foreign leaders, and tries to eradicate slavery and the Native American genocide from museums and school books.

Tell me about those three branches again. Right now, they have been perverted into a single tool to carry out the whims of an egotistic asshole backed by a powerful group of conservative activists.

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

#127

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

axus wrote: post #59
bri3d wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole article is weird to me. This reads to me like: * Some employee somewhere wanted to click the shiny Claude button in the AWS FedRamp marketplace * Whatever USG legal team were involved said "that domestic surveillance clause doesn't work for us" and tried to redline it. * Anthropic rejected the redline. * Someone got mad and went to Semafor. It's unclear that this has even really escalated prior to the arti…

A classic: THIS SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAILSAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR…

This excerpt does not disclaim liability for death, personal injury or physical damage (b/c generally they can't)

Nor does it prohibit use or resale of "Java Technology" for any particular purpose

It does suggest they are aware of Java's shortcomings

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

#128

Post by watwut »

mindcrime wrote: post #118
impossiblefork wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory yes, but you also have this stuff where people agree to get medical treatment and the price isn't specified. This would be a non-contract in Swedish law, for example.

One thing about the US, is how we handle settings where one could conceptualize a contract as being needed, but where it would be way too inefficient and impractical to negotiate, write out, understand, and sign, a written contract. In those cases, which includes things like retail sales, restaurants, and may other cases, the UCC or Uniform Commercial Code[1][2] applies. Not sure offhand if that relates to the medica…

Knowing medical prices up front would be entirely possible and practical. In most situations, you should be able to sign contract up front.

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

#129

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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…

Your grandchildren will disown you when they learn what you supported in 2025.

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

#130

Post by FrustratedMonky »

adastra22 wrote: post #114
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #63

Wasn't a big part of AI 2027 that government employees became overly reliant on AI and couldn't function without it. So guess we are still on track to hit that timeline.

A big part of what?

https://ai-2027.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_onqn68GHY

One of the stages was gov/military personnel became dependent on AI for decision making.

Post reply on HN