681–690 of 1001 posts
https://x.com/PalmerLuckey/status/2027500334999081294 It is an interesting point. What's the difference between this use license and others?
> "Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic." Does this mean Azure & AWS will have to stop offering Claude as a model?
AWS Bedrock has deployed Anthropic models under an interesting structure. It is fully hands off - the models are copied into the AWS infrastructure and don't use anything from Anthropic. I think if push came to shove, Anthropic could cut ties with Amazon and AWS could probably still keep serving the models it has with Anthropic forgoing revenue until this is resolved, while asserting they are not "conducting commercial activity" between each other.
All speculation of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue. The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.
I'm guessing you're being down voted because people don't know if you think that's a good thing or not. I do not think it's a good thing. Do you?
American people: latinamerican here. Maybe it's silly to root for a country in the world hegemony arena. I've usually been partial to the USA over China. Now I'm not rooting for your country anymore. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have China being the foremost power, at least they seem to be less keen on invading or heavily strong-arming latinamerica
China's AI Safety Governance Framework: https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-09/15/c_1759653448369123.htm
Most Americans hate AI and it's effectively the ostrich effect where they hope to outright ban it and ignore everything else. Meanwhile, all the evil people are running the show. While Anthropic continues to propagate Sinophobic messaging, DeepSeek and other companies have a much more muted tone.
Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA. In fact, as a patriotic American veteran, I'd be ok with Anthropic moving to Europe. It might be better for Claude and AGI, which are overriding issues for me. Rutger Bregman @rcbregman This is a huge opportunity for Europe. Welcome Anthropic with open arms. Roll out the red carpet. Visa for all employees. Eu…
Canada is another option. Canada has significant AI research institutes going back decades ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mila_(research_institute) ) that have produced much of the foundational research that backs today's AI models. For Americans and international researchers it's easy to get visas there quickly. It's not far at all for Americans to relocate to or visit. Electricity is cheap and clean. Canada has th…
This could kill Anthropic. The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude canno…
None of the hyper scalers are going to stop offering Claude. All of the big 3 have invested billions of dollars into Anthropic, and have tens (if not hundreds) of billions more tied up in funding deals with them. Amazon and Google are two of the largest shareholders of Anthropic. Anthropic is going to be fine. The DoD is going to walk this back and pretend it never happened to save face.
Also, AWS has a long history of rolling over when politicians make noise about AWS customers, going back to when Joe Lieberman casually asked Bezos to please stop supporting Wikileaks.
Wow, and the only restrictions Anthropic asked for are (1) no mass domestic surveillance and (2) require human-in-the-loop for killing [1]. Those seem exceptionally reasonable, and even rather weak, lol :| [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
Did the DoW ask for these things? This whole thing seems like people talking past each other, and that there’s something being left unsaid. Anthropic doesn’t make a product that would assist with kill drones, and they don’t have the right to deny subpoenas.
Trump's associated "Truth" ("Truth Social" is the name of his risible fake-Twitter and they call Tweets, "Truths" there) that preceded this: https://www.trumpstruth.org/statuses/36981 Don't worry, this is an archive/mirroring site for his account, not the actual TS site. I'd comment on how wackadoo this all is, but, 1) that applies to almost everything these days, and 2) the post's right there, see for yourself.
I really don't follow USA-politics besides the occasional hn-thread, random yt videos, and comments from friends... With that said: what are the chances, in your opinion, that Donald wrote that himself? To me it reads too coherent for there to be any chance he wrote or even dictated that.
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…
[flagged]
You're ignoring the sequence of events on the ground.
If there hadn't been any been any internal pushback from Anthropic, would the directive have ever been made public?
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…
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.