321–330 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consumer goodwill is working then - it pushed me to upgrade my plan on march 1st... (do they bill on rolling 30 day cycle ? or calendar-month to calendar-month?)
It’s not rolling 30 days. Lost 2 days of use by subscribing in February.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The demands are not only unreasonable they are in violation of the contract the DoD signed. Do you really think LLMs should be used in autonomous weapons systems? Do you think they government should use them in mass domestic surveillance? That is reasonable?
Are you an American? Do you understand that your safe easy life depends on a mostly autonomous nuclear deterrence capability maintained by the military you oppose? Deeply think about why you still have right to free speech, and what it takes to sustain those rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new." The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.
It is so clearly being used to a much greater and more deliberate degree during this administration. Pretending otherwise is foolish
1. I don’t understand what is controversial about any supplier making their own rules for trade. I don’t have to agree with their beliefs, but I find it the basis of a functioning society to allow others to hold beliefs that I do not share, and to develop products as they want, as long as they don’t pose any dangers. If I don’t like the product, I am free to shop elsewhere or develop my own.
2. I thought that there is was a shared understanding of the line between voluntary business deals, and coercion and punishment. I thought we agreed that the law should protect people and businesses in ways so that nobody can exert power over another. Not on the hows, but on the why. And not based on ethical considerations (beliefs) but purely on logical grounds that we know how violence begets violence, use of it will only escalate conflict, and we will ultimately lose.
3. I thought we all agreed that government agencies were bound by the law and its policies. If you were to use the designation of Supply Chain Risk, you would at least have to sufficiently provide logical arguments. Here, they even openly disclose how they plan to use the mechanism purely as punishment, against the spirit of the law, not because a product carries any risk and should be limited, but because it is too limited.
Is this some form of collective narcissistic psychosis? The desire to burn it all down in suicide?
> we believe that mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights Mass surveillance of people constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. The red line is in the wrong place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OTOH, I think almost guaranteed it will be watered-down by the government. Because read expansively, it could force Microsoft and AWS to choose between stopping reselling Claude vs dropping the Pentagon as a customer. A tweet does not have the force of law. Being designated a supply chain risk does not mean that companies who do business with the government cannot do business with Anthropic. Hegseth just has the la…
The issue is, even if the Trump admin is misrepresenting what the law actually says, federal contractors may decide it is safer to comply with the administration’s reading. The risk is the administration may use their reading to reject a bid. And even if they could potentially challenge that in court and win, they may decide the cheaper and less risky option is to choose OpenAI (or whoever) instead
I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about Anthropic's first response and the RSP update [1][2]. I think many people on HN have a cynical reaction to Anthropic's actions due to of their own lived experiences with tech companies. Sometimes, that holds: my part of the company looked like Meta or Stripe, and it's hard not to regress to the mean as you scale. But not every patt…
Don't surviel the US populace? Don't automate killing, make sure a human is in the loop? No, sorry, don't automate killing yet.
Yeah dude, I'm sure just about any burglar I pull out of prison will agree.
Listen yes, it's good compared to like 99% of US companies. But that really speaks more to the absolute moral bankruptcy of most companies, and not to Anthropics principles.
That being said, yes we should applaud anthropic. Because yes this is rare and yes this is a step in the right direction. I just think we all need to acknowledge where we are right now, which is... not a good place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is pretty polarised about this - they are either “the good guys” or “doing it for positive marketing”. I’m on the camp “the world is so fucked up, take the good when you can find it”. Beggars can’t be choosers when it comes to taking a stand against dictatorships.
No surprises many people on YCs site align with Sam Altmans view of the world - right or wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have not; a social media post does not satisfy the requirements of 10 USC section 3252. They are required to notify Congress (they have not), prepare a report with specific sections (they have not), and the reasons must fall within a set of categories outlined by statute (this does not). There will be a court fight and they will lose, just like they lost the tariff battle, because of poor competence. (Trump's po…
If the USG can mandate that everyone who works for a company that ever took a federal contract be genetically engineered, then I think they can tell people to not use Claude.