531–540 of 912 posts
If government procurement rules intended for national security risks can be abused as a way to punish Anthropic for perceived lack of loyalty, why not any other company that displeases the administration like Apple or Amazon?
This marks an important turning point for the US.
If the DoW/DoD wants Anthropic, they'll get Anthropic, whether we know about it publicly or not. It's not unlikely that they're already working together and just putting on a show for the public. I'd even go as far to say that if this is indeed a publicity campaign it is the most successful one I've seen in years. Many detractors of the existence of LLMs are suddenly leaping to Anthropic's defence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. But that's what the supply-chain risk is for? I'm legitimately struggling to understand this viewpoint of yours wherein they are entitled to refuse to directly purchase Anthropic products but they're not entitled to refuse to indirectly purchase Anthropic products via subcontractors.
Supply chain risk is not meant for this. The government isn't banning Anthropic because using it harms national security. They are banning it in retribution for Anthropic taking a stand. It's the same as Trump claiming emergency powers to apply tariffs, when the "emergency" he claimed was basically "global trade exists." Yes, the government can choose to purchase or not. No, supply chain risk is absolutely not correc…
You’re really trying to complain that the use of the rule is inappropriate here, which may be true, but is far more a matter of opinion than anything else.
[flagged]
So there you have it
Prediction: in time, OpenAI will be declared such to privatise profits but socialise losses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there are. But once it exists, a technology will be used for all purposes. The choice is in the making, anything else is virtue signaling.
One second, I have to go turn my stove off. It could be used to start a forest fire.
You’re kinda already conceding to some of your opponents points when you use legally invalid names like “Department of War” I appreciate the sentiment but don’t preconcede to your opposition by using their framing.
"Legally Invalid" lol - what?
Currently the government executive branch is claiming they have that right and the legislative branch can get fucked.
I am taking advice from the current executive admin around names and continuing to call the Department of Defense by their biological name.
Not all the other shit this administration has been doing?
God, I hate it here.