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

271–280 of 475 posts

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

#271

Post by pvab3 »

superxpro12 wrote: post #247
andrewla wrote: post #187

I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security. The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect. The eviden…

[flagged]

It happens in a lot of ways. People call things violence, terrorism, matters of public health, or war to justify whatever it is they want.

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

#273

Post by iamatworknow »

parineum wrote: post #193
kypro wrote: post #188

I know most will see this as a good thing, and perhaps in this case it is, but I think it's generally concerning that people can vote for leaders who effectively can't do anything significant. I understand this community largely disagrees with Trump, but the only people who win overall from these scenarios are people who support the status-quo and don't like the idea of a leader having significant power to change thi…

> but I think it's generally concerning that people can vote for leaders who effectively can't do anything significant. The people vote for a lot more than just the president. This isn't the president's job. That's what the judge says, not that nobody can do it, just the president/executive can't. The people also vote for the people who's job it is to have done the same thing but legally.

If only it were that simple.

Recall the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act". The legislature _did_ pass a law banning software then and the executive just ignored it.

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

#274

Post by claytongulick »

superxpro12 wrote: post #247
andrewla wrote: post #187

I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security. The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect. The eviden…

[flagged]

Congress ceding it's authority to the executive branch is an issue of national concern, has been going on for decades, and is definitely not limited to one specific party [1], though I do agree that the current administration has been testing the limits of executive power more than any other that I can recall in my lifetime.

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-...

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

#275

Post by realo »

bruce511 wrote: post #29
angry_octet wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Iran war and SoH crisis has been great for EV uptake outside of the US. In combination with the US AI apartheid, it has been a huge boost for Chinese EVs and Chinese AI adoption.

And trade. The last 18 months the US has shown itself to be a unreliable trade partner. Lots of companies are looking at diversifying both markets and supply chains. The recent trip of the Canadian PM to China is but the most visible part of this shift. That's at govt level, but I've seen it happen all the way down to individual level. US products are typically more expensive here than Chinese. But at least you were…

I recently bought a BambuLab 3D printer.

Designed and made in China.

Right from the unpacking to first print the experience was top Apple-style quality.

Indeed I was agreeably surprised.

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

#276

Post by qlte »

pvab3 wrote: post #271
superxpro12 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It happens in a lot of ways. People call things violence, terrorism, matters of public health, or war to justify whatever it is they want.

No, this isn't just an overused rhetorical device like all politicians do, those examples are the flimsy legal argument the Trump Admin uses in court, frequently as justification to break the actual letter of the law.

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

#277

Post by matheusmoreira »

inigyou wrote: post #84
rozal wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh no, lost jobs and and dying economy!

That is a policy choice. Why do we need jobs if we're getting unlimited free stuff? The laws of physics aren't requiring us to - we are requiring us to.

> Why do we need jobs if we're getting unlimited free stuff?

Are you seriously arguing that the policy of putting oneself in a position of total economic dependence on China is in any way reasonable?

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

#278

Post by the_gastropod »

zaphar wrote: post #244
the_gastropod wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A both-sides guy! How original! Choose the worst Democratic politician currently in office and please explain what they’ve done or said that is in any way comparable to what the Republican Party is doing.

This is completely missing the point. Structurally I don't believe either party is set up to allow truly quality candidates to succeed. They optimize for all the wrong things in their candidates. Candidates who are quality that get through tend to be exceptions. Picking the worst of either side is just furthering the "We can't vote for good candidates because they might lose to whoever we believe is the worst candida…

I think that’s some pretty thin gruel. The Democratic Party is hardly perfect. But that’s true of every political party on the planet. There are some grifters, some incompetent, and some corrupt Democrats. But by and large, Democratic politicians do seem to genuinely try to do their jobs. They seem to be at least somewhat receptive, as well. And crucially, they hold their own to account. Get caught with gold bars in your suitcase? Bye. Have women with credible accusations of sexual misconduct against you? Sayonara. There also are many very competent democratic politicians doing solid jobs across the country: Senator Van Hollen, Senator Ossoff, AOC, James McGovern, Baltimore’s mayor Brandon Scott, etc. I see no reason to pretend they’re unworkable. And to suggest “eh, both sides suck” has always felt incredibly lazy and nihilistic to me.

Care about third party options? There are current Democrats advocating for ranked choice voting. The RNC rejects ranked choice. And there are many GOP states that have outright banned ranked choice voting. There’s a party that’s clearly better for your interests.

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

#279

Post by qlte »

tialaramex wrote: post #102
oatmeal1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unusual that the "shadow docket" orders have limited briefings when the extent of the ruling/order is usually procedural, as opposed to ruling on the merits of the case. It should be noted any justice can write a dissent in a "shadow docket" ruling. If a justice finds a ruling incorrect, nothing hides their criticism of it from the light.

This mechanism means that regardless of how awful the Trump admin proposal one SCOTUS justice can "temporarily" unblock it giving no reason at all, and then the "real" merits case can be slow-walked.

Slow-walked, conveniently, until the admin has finished doing whatever the original lawsuit claimed was illegal, and then the government argues it is impossible to undo after the fact.

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

#280

Post by colechristensen »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #24
colechristensen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why can't they expedite for special cases? They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides. Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been mor…

Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm This is a fast paced business environment where one company being explicitly disallowed by the government could create long-lasting damage. How many institutions might have gone with the safer OpenAI and will not revisit the decision?

I'm pretty convinced Anthropic was intentionally antagonizing the government in order to get high level attention, media coverage, and government contacts to hep "fix" the problem. Far from irreparable harm it was a marketing stunt.
Post reply on HN