31–40 of 319 posts
I would love to understand in more detail what kind of use cases we’re talking about. Is this about locating the right target for a sortie for example?
The whole point is that the use-case does not matter; either you allow the government to do everything they want, either you don’t.
Isn’t it actually quite fair that if you are not compliant with whatever the government wants you to do you will be supplying chain risk? For example from history we know that Schindler from Schindler's List was indeed a supply chain risk. He harbored persecuted people, he took and sabotaged government contracts. He did the moral but anti-government and illegal things. He was corrupt traitor from governments perspect…
Anthropic and the Government both signed a contract. Anthropic is still abiding the terms of that contract. The Government is demanding that they be able to disobey the contract.
https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...
The consequence is that any company that does business with the U.S. military, and potentially any company that does business with the government in general, must stop using Anthropic's products for that work. Anthropic has vowed to fight this designation in court. Without weighing in on the constitutionality or legality of the move, I think it's obvious that this kind of retaliation power is unmatched by any private…
Apparently that's not 100% true. The DoD contractor itself can still use Anthropic's technology, just not on U.S. military contract projects.
I would love to understand in more detail what kind of use cases we’re talking about. Is this about locating the right target for a sortie for example?
The reports about Venezuela and Iran seem to suggest it's primary role was processing bulk intel.
But also that it was being used in planning and target selection.
Presumably what spooked Anthropic was that these tools were about to be directed internally.
But it's not clear if this is a point of principle that the government wants no holds barred with it's tools?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic and the Government both signed a contract. Anthropic is still abiding the terms of that contract. The Government is demanding that they be able to disobey the contract.
Implementation details TBH. They want “their boys” to do as said. No respect to agreement or legality as we can see in other dealings. They hold all they cards.
The civil society should be quite concerned about this kind of attacks.
The consequence is that any company that does business with the U.S. military, and potentially any company that does business with the government in general, must stop using Anthropic's products for that work. Anthropic has vowed to fight this designation in court. Without weighing in on the constitutionality or legality of the move, I think it's obvious that this kind of retaliation power is unmatched by any private…
Apparently that's not 100% true. The DoD contractor itself can still use Anthropic's technology, just not on U.S. military contract projects.
The consequence is that any company that does business with the U.S. military, and potentially any company that does business with the government in general, must stop using Anthropic's products for that work. Anthropic has vowed to fight this designation in court. Without weighing in on the constitutionality or legality of the move, I think it's obvious that this kind of retaliation power is unmatched by any private…
