Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Which part?
I should think that it was very obvious that America does not have a dictatorial government; this is hyperbole.
Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
61–70 of 145 posts
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two of them jump at the command one the other one, one out of fear (because he has ended the careers of every rep that has crossed him), and the other has been packed with life-time-appointment sycophants who put loyalty to the cut over anything else. Russia (or literally any other dictatorial tyre pyre) also has three branches of government and a token opposition, for all the good it does. Just because you have a ni…
[flagged]
It’s not a fact, because it depends upon a subjective interpretation of the word “working.” Some might argue, for example, that if the President can cow Congress into subservience, then the three branches of government are no longer in balance with each other, and thus the constitution is no longer “working” as intended.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#63Wasn't a big part of AI 2027 that government employees became overly reliant on AI and couldn't function without it. So guess we are still on track to hit that timeline.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#64One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.
Dictatorial suggests a "ruler with total power". The US has three branches of government. That hasn't changed, ever.
The definition of dictatorial government is either a single person or a small group of people. So there being three branches of government doesn't necessarily prohibit a government from being a dictatorship if they are all working together to enact their authoritarian control without constitutional limits.
But really this is just pointless semantics. It doesn't matter what it is called it is still a problem.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#65Earlier 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.
All the US megacorps tend send me emails saying "We want to change TOS, here's the new TOS that's be valid from date X, and be informed that you have the right to refuse it" (in which case they'll probably terminate the service, but I'm quite sure that if it's a paid service with some subscription, they would have to refund the remaining portion) - so they can change the TOS, but not without at least some form of agreement, even if it's an implicit one 'by continuing to use the service'.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#66One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.
[flagged]
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#67One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.
Dictatorial suggests a "ruler with total power". The US has three branches of government. That hasn't changed, ever.
Technically (and legally) the USSR also had the same three branches of government; just all controlled by the same party.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#68Very 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.
[deleted]
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It’s not a fact, because it depends upon a subjective interpretation of the word “working.” Some might argue, for example, that if the President can cow Congress into subservience, then the three branches of government are no longer in balance with each other, and thus the constitution is no longer “working” as intended.
It can be true that the constitution is not working as intended, AND the US is a far cry from a country like Russian in terms of it operating as a constitutional republic / democracy. It is not subjective to say the US is more of a democratic country than Russia.
Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole article is weird to me. This reads to me like: * Some employee somewhere wanted to click the shiny Claude button in the AWS FedRamp marketplace * Whatever USG legal team were involved said "that domestic surveillance clause doesn't work for us" and tried to redline it. * Anthropic rejected the redline. * Someone got mad and went to Semafor. It's unclear that this has even really escalated prior to the arti…
A classic: THIS SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAILSAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR…
I never knew Java was so dangerous