One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.
[flagged]
Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
41–50 of 145 posts
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure that every restriction that’s in the model is also spelled out in the contract? If they add new ones, do they update the contract?
The contracts will usually say “You agree to the restrictions in our TOS” with a link to that page which allows for them to update the TOS without new signatures.
Usually, contracts will note that you will be notified of changes ahead of time, if it's a good faith contract and company that is.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#43[flagged]
Yes! Everybody goose-step in unison as to not irk the administration? /s People should behave more like the invertebrates we are and show some semblance of a spine. Now most have more semblance with snails and jellyfish. Yes they will survive but only because there are so many of them.
vertebrates
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#44One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.
It's startling how few are willing to. I'm rooting for them.
Can we trust this though? “Cooperate with us and we’ll leak fake stories about how frustrated we are with you as cover”.
And I’m not singling out Anthropic. None of these companies or governments (i.e. people) can be trusted at face value.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#45Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contracts will usually say “You agree to the restrictions in our TOS” with a link to that page which allows for them to update the TOS without new signatures.
Usually, contracts will note that you will be notified of changes ahead of time, if it's a good faith contract and company that is.
Here in Sweden contracts are a specific thing, otherwise it's not a contract, so agreeing to conditions that can be changed by the other party simply isn't a contract and therefore is just a bullshit paper of very dubious legal validity.
I know that some things like this are accepted in America, and I can't judge how it would be dealt with. I assume that contracts between companies and other sophisticated entities are actual contracts with unchangeable terms.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#47Very strange writing from semafor.com >For instance, an agency could pay for a subscription or negotiate a pay-per-use contract with an AI provider, only to find out that it is prohibited from using the AI model in certain ways, limiting its value. This is of course quite false. They of course know the restriction when they sign the contract.
Don’t tech companies change ToS quite frequently and sometimes in ways that’s against the spirit of what the terms were when you started using it?
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#48First, contracts often come with usage restrictions.
Second, this article is incredibly dismissive and whiny about anyone ever taking safety seriously, for pretty much any definition of "safety". I mean, it even points out that Anthropic has "the only top-tier models cleared for top secret security situations", which seems like a direct result of them actually giving a shit about safety in the first place.
And the whining about "the contract says we can't use it for surveillance, but we want to use it for good surveillance, so it doesn't count. Their definition of surveillance is politically motivated and bad"! It's just... wtf? Is it surveillance or not?
This isn't a partisan thing. It's barely a political thing. It's more like "But we want to put a Burger King logo on the syringe we use for lethal injections! Why are you upset? We're the state so it's totally legal to be killing people this way, so you have to let us use your stuff however we want."
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#49Very strange writing from semafor.com >For instance, an agency could pay for a subscription or negotiate a pay-per-use contract with an AI provider, only to find out that it is prohibited from using the AI model in certain ways, limiting its value. This is of course quite false. They of course know the restriction when they sign the contract.
Don’t tech companies change ToS quite frequently and sometimes in ways that’s against the spirit of what the terms were when you started using it?
This is a contract, not a click through license. You can't do that.
(Legally you can't do it with a click-through either, but the lack of a contract means that the recourse for the user is just to stop buying the service.)
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#50This feels like a hit piece by semafor. A lot of the information in there is purely false. For example, Microsoft's AI Agreemeent says (prohibits): "...cannot use...For ongoing surveillance or real-time or near real-time identification or persistent tracking of the individual using any of their personal data, including biometric data, without the individual’s valid consent."
There's nothing stopping Microsoft hammering out different terms for certain customers, like governments.