661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no evidence that what you say is true. A tweet is not a legally binding statement.
It will be true as soon as it becomes official though, assuming they actually go through with it and this is not just a bargaining tactic.
The disconnect here for me is, I assume the DoW and Anthropic signed a contract at some point and that contract most likely stipulated that these are the things they can do and these are the things they can't do. I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original co…
[1] "only an act of Congress can formally change the name of a federal department." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347
(edited to add the url I omitted)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dont forget Nvidia technology was condsidered too sensitive to be exported to China....until the Trump administration decided they could export it if they paid a 10% export tax.
Aren't export taxes against the US constitution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language in the tweet was " Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic." Is that just his fantasy or?
Example: Perhaps "Amazon US Services LLC" or whichever subsidiary they have that deals with the government will be banned from using Claude, and all of it's other subsidiaries won't? https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872423...
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-in-amazon-bedrock-fedr...
Topics like this are where I struggle with HN philosophy. Normally avoiding politics and ideology where possible, created higher quality and more interesting discussions. But how do you even begin to discuss that Tweet or this topic without talking about ideology and to contextualize this with other seemingly unrelated things currently going on in the US? I genuinely don't think I'm conversationally agile enough to b…
You can't discuss this topic without broaching the idea that the government is acting in bad faith — that they don't actually believe that Anthropic is a supply-chain risk and that this action is meant to punish the company. But this is in the HN guidelines regarding comments: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good fait…
This is more for “assume op is not a troll” rather than “assume Donald trump never took part on Epstein’s parties”.
I’ve never taken it to apply to anything other than the interaction with other commenters.
Should military contractors put conditions on the use of their weapons? Here's our tank, but you can't invade Iran with it? We think your invasion of Venezuela is illegal, we're activating the kill switch on your jets. That's a real dangerous proposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is quite literally the norm for things with known dangerous use cases. Go look at the package on a kitchen knife and it says not to be used as a weapon
Playing devil's advocate: if I did in fact grab one of my kitchen knives to defend myself against a violent intruder into my kitchen, I wouldn't expect to be banned from buying kitchen knives. I'm not sure this is still a useful analogy, though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the original contract, it's entirely appropriate for a vendor to tell the customer how to use any materials. Imagine a _leaded_ pipe supplier not being allowed to tell the department of war they shouldn't use leaded pipes for drinking water! It's the job of the vendor to tell the customer appropriate usage.
Not in software though. Clear precedent has been established via EULAs. Software companies set the rules and if users don't like, they can piss off. I don't see why it would be any different for the government.