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

The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

understandingai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–247 of 247 posts

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#241

Post by wpwd »

halJordan wrote: post #194
snowwrestler wrote: post #130

Use of the DPA can be litigated, and surely would be. Designation as a supply chain risk surely would be as well. These court cases would produce bad outcomes either way. If the court finds for Anthropic, future DoD leadership will find itself constrained or at least chilled. Or if the court finds for the government, an expansive permissive view of the DPA might encourage future administrations to compel tech compani…

The problem in this case is in fact the best part of our military. The civilian control. This isn't a general or admiral going insane. This is a politically motivated and appropriately assigned civilian. And that's the good part. The bad part is the failure of the citizenry to elect moral and ethical politicians.

The bad part is the failure of the political parties to proffer moral and ethical politicians for the people to elect.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#242

Post by mindslight »

b112 wrote: post #240
mindslight wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your first sentence is bizarre, considering this post is longer than you last Half my post was trying to explain some context where I am coming from. I was addressing the general tone of your post, and pointing out why I was not going to pick through each point line by line trying to tease out nuance. What's bizarre is for you to go here , as it seems exactly like a condemnation " keyed to knock down "the other guy…

So when I write at length, it's worthy of note. When you do, it's for "reasons". When I shorten my responses, I'm now "dodging" questions, is that it? So no matter my post length, I'm in error? And I directly answered your question, by saying there is no appreciable difference between US presidents, predicated upon party lines, when viewed externally. There is no other way to answer, for no one on this planet, even t…

> So when I write at length, it's worthy of note

No, the thrust of that remark wasn't about the length. Seriously, go back and read your own tone. I said I agreed with a lot of what you wrote, factually. But it felt like you were trying to beat me over the head with a barrage of points - that same team sport dynamic you're bemoaning.

> Do you think any Canadian thinks this will be isolated to this single administration?

I don't know - I cannot answer for what Canadians think. I would hope not, but if you do then it is not really my place to dissuade you from thinking so.

As an American I hope that the reaction to the Trumpist destruction will be some long-overdue major reforms (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092688) and accountability for the current regime that might engender trust and repairing of relationships over time. But I was also hopeful that my fellow countrymen wouldn't be foolish enough to vote for a candidate with a proven track record of "death to America", so I'm probably being overly hopeful here.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#243

Post by avs733 »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #60
avs733 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a private company they can largely sell or not sell they want. They aren’t saying they won’t build them because they are to effective they are saying they won’t build them because they aren’t safe.

Quoting statute: > The President is hereby authorized (1) to require that performance under contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) which he deems necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense shall take priority over performance under any other contract or order, and, for the purpose of assuring such priority, to require acceptance and performance of such contracts or orders in preference…

That simply says if a company offers a service the government gets to cut the line. It doesn say I have to make them a hamburger if I’m a sushi restaurant.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#245

Post by b112 »

mindslight wrote: post #242
b112 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when I write at length, it's worthy of note. When you do, it's for "reasons". When I shorten my responses, I'm now "dodging" questions, is that it? So no matter my post length, I'm in error? And I directly answered your question, by saying there is no appreciable difference between US presidents, predicated upon party lines, when viewed externally. There is no other way to answer, for no one on this planet, even t…

> So when I write at length, it's worthy of note No, the thrust of that remark wasn't about the length. Seriously, go back and read your own tone. I said I agreed with a lot of what you wrote, factually. But it felt like you were trying to beat me over the head with a barrage of points - that same team sport dynamic you're bemoaning. > Do you think any Canadian thinks this will be isolated to this single administrati…

Uh, what?! You really, really aren't getting it. Discussing a point isn't the issue. Debating with someone, your position, isn't the issue.

It's the presumptive assignment of "this other side is the enemy" and "he said a word, thus he must be the enemy" and all that blather which I've described repeatedly up-post. And yes, you were complaining about length, else you would not have mentioned it.

I can tell you won't get what I say, no matter what I write here.

All I will close with, is that while I see you are working on ways to resolve some issues, the single biggest issue is money. You need to remove almost all campaign funding from elections. Capping all funding to $1000/person, and $1000/company, along with lots of other things (such as, no "gifts", no donations, etc) would make an enormous difference.

Not only would it make it easier for grass roots, new parties to rise up, it would also remove all dependence upon mega-corps to successfully run a campaign.

You should put that at the top of the list.

In a lot of countries (including Canada), if you go to lunch with a politician, you cannot pay for his lunch. Nor he, yours. That's illegal.

That's how rigid it needs to be.

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#246

Post by mindslight »

b112 wrote: post #245
mindslight wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So when I write at length, it's worthy of note No, the thrust of that remark wasn't about the length. Seriously, go back and read your own tone. I said I agreed with a lot of what you wrote, factually. But it felt like you were trying to beat me over the head with a barrage of points - that same team sport dynamic you're bemoaning. > Do you think any Canadian thinks this will be isolated to this single administrati…

Uh, what?! You really, really aren't getting it. Discussing a point isn't the issue. Debating with someone, your position, isn't the issue. It's the presumptive assignment of "this other side is the enemy" and "he said a word, thus he must be the enemy" and all that blather which I've described repeatedly up-post. And yes, you were complaining about length, else you would not have mentioned it. I can tell you won't g…

Well I do consider the Trump regime my enemy. By all measures their goals appear to be to drastically harm the position of the United States. And not in a positive-sum competitive way like another country, but rather outright negative-sum looting and destruction.

But that doesn't mean I consider its grassroots supporters my enemy. I understand, sympathize, and often share their frustrations! You should have been able to glean that from my few preceding comments. The problem is that they're stuck in horrible media bubbles telling them that anybody who deviates from the Party mantra is their enemy - and this has been going on much longer than Trump.

I have long tried to engage on the issues they claim to care about, often in person, seemingly to no avail. One stark example I have is an extended family member complaining about GPS satellites tracking their location through their phone. This is something I myself care deeply about, and also know a thing or two about as well. But trying to make the point to them that there are some understandable mechanics whereby you can start taking concrete steps to at least reduce the tracking? Zero recognition or interest!

The only conclusion I can see is that they use the vague paranoia and blaming "the government" as a group identity bonding mechanism. By deviating from the mantras, I declare myself as an outsider who in their eyes is merely part of the problem.

But anyway, that's my trying to explain where I am coming from, which hopefully addresses the thrust of your point. But from your past few comments, I've gotten the impression you're not really reading my explanations here. Rather you're doing the exact thing you bemoan - seeing me as the enemy, ignoring my substantive engagement, and only aiming to beat me down regardless.

And sure maybe this makes sense from the Canadian perspective these days - cut off ties, erect barriers to protect yourselves, and try to move on. I cannot say, and I wouldn't blame you! But don't lecture me about it with some assumed moral authority, especially regarding the response to a single-word non-substantive flamebait.

(As for campaign finance reform that was addressed in my point #3. We used to have a semblance of that before the Supreme Council invalidated it. My list wasn't really meant to be ordered per se)

Re: The Pentagon is making a mistake by threatening Anthropic

#247

Post by walletdrainer »

Drupon wrote: post #231
walletdrainer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absurd to claim that Ukraine (I’ll assume you actually mean “Ukrainian leadership”) is somehow “abusing” a constitutionally mandated state of emergency.

>I’ll assume you actually mean “Ukrainian leadership” What else could I possibly have meant, genius? But yes of course they've taken advantage of it. Russia yeeting them out of its own territories and then invading The Ukraine is the best thing Zelensky could have asked for.

How is that “abuse”?
Post reply on HN