Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question - was your fair consideration prior to or after J6?
Both.
Interesting
Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
291–300 of 319 posts
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#292It might be that this admin does not have the capacity to reason about second or third order effects. But given that what would typically be red lines for previous administrations have been brazenly crossed without consequences, why would they bother?
Nope, they don't have that capacity. It's been shown multiple times in the past year.
Shutting down USAID being the clearest one. They just saw "they help brown people in other countries with our money" and shut it down. Fuck all second and third order effects that actually benefited the US.
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to legend the devil adheres precisely to the terms of the contacts he signs; it's usually the foolhardy peasant who didn't notice the fine print.
Very useful if you run into him in Georgia or if you want to get his tooth to make a guitar pick.
I think i'm gonna need an explanation for that sentence
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
StOp MaKiNg EvErYtHiNg PolItIcaL
In an article that discusses Pentagon doing stupid shit? :)
As the sibling explained, it was sarcasm. It was satire of brain dead right wingers saying "stop making everything political" when political points apply, but then making things political politcal in stupid situations.
Example, someone shoots up a school, people say "if the Republican party hadn't obstructed gun legislation maybe this wouldn't have happened", they respond "StOp MaKiNg EvErYtHiNg PolItIcaL". But if the person is trans suddenly it's political.
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#295Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
It opens the door for Democratic administrations to do the same to vendors for their own political reasons. That’s ultimately why Ted Cruz spoke out about the Kimmel cancelation. It doesn’t take long until those powers are turned against you.
I think a good play by the Democrats would be to say that if they get into office they're going to investigate all these deals as potential bribery, fraud and corruption and that any business leaders that appeared to benefit from contributions might be prosecuted. That would be a laugh, I'd love to see how quickly the excuses start rolling in.
And then don't be surprised when even more money flows to their opponents.
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL and this is my understanding of the situation (I can be completely wrong) but yes, any company that deals with military cant use Claude (anthropic) In fact adding onto it, IIRC this is the reason why google and amazon have to divest essentially from Anthropic if they want Govt. contracts Hope this helps though a lawyer's input will definitely be more credible. So its good for them to respond as well.
You are 100% incorrect, only direct contract work is affected
I can be wrong but I looked up online and there are sources which say the same, so I am curious to know more about it.
> Former Trump Al advisor Dean Ball has warned that the White House's decision to designate Anthropic a "supply chain risk" could blow back on some of the biggest names in tech-including Google, Amazon, and Microsoft-all of whom have billions of dollars riding on the Al startup. Ball, reacting to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's order barring any military contractor or supplier from doing business with Anthropic, said the move amounts to "attempted corporate murder."
> He added that if Hegseth gets his way, Google, Amazon, and Nvidia would effectively have to divest from Anthropic-a company they've collectively poured billions into.[0]
> Amazon alone has committed up to $8 billion in Anthropic. Google has invested around $2 billion. And Microsoft, while not a direct investor, relies on Anthropic's models through its Azure cloud platform. A forced divestiture or business cutoff from any of these companies would send shockwaves through the AI investment landscape at a time when hundreds of billions are flowing into the sector.
[0]:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/don...
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
secret police kidnapping people off the streets didn't clue you in?!!
If you're referring to ICE, that's gross hyperbole, and honestly a little insulting to people who live / have lived in regimes with an actual secret police. The US is still a rights-based state, which means that when they arrest someone (legitimately or not), lawyers and human right advocates can eventually track them down. When a secret police disappears someone, they actually disappear . Families can spend years wo…
Have you been paying attention? There are reports about hundreds of people going missing in ICE detention. Maybe they aren't being shoveled into mass graves, but if we don't where they are and can't reach them and ICE themselves don't know where they are because they no longer exist in their databases, is there any difference for their families?
Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but then the government can decide that the widget, which can suddenly and arbitrarily break and cause havoc because it doesn't work according to the government's desired spec, is risky to use and advise their other vendors to avoid it. And now we've caught up to today's story. So we agree that everything is fine here, and that the only unreasonable position is that the military should pay for or endorse a suppli…
If I agree to sell widgets to the government that meet certain agreed-upon specifications, and then I elect to forego those earlier agreements and tell them to fuck off, then that's different. Is that what happened here?
I reject the premise that the military can't request a change to the spec of military equipment they purchase. Obviously it was foolish to sign a contract that added any more restrictions than "all lawful purposes".