871–880 of 912 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human beings all and each have the agency to make this choice for themselves.
So individuals have a “duty … to sabotage their country when it becomes immoral” according to individually-defined standards of morality? That seems like an unworkable way to run any society with more than a few people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s true and it’s not over yet, wait till he reaches the thousand year reich bit.
Like hanging his face on banners at the DOJ while proclaiming he'd be entitled to a third term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to deny an offer to become a millionaire in the next 3 years if you just hang tight at xAI, especially if you don't have any offers from competing AI labs. Also, LLMs are converging into an easy-to-replicate commodity. It doesn't matter much who wastes their money on you to build them.
If you can get an offer at xAI you can get an offer anywhere. All the labs and top players will make you a millionaire in 3 years. xAI is a pure choice. Their people have the ability to work at Anthropic but choose xAI.
(I dropped out at the end because there were issues with HR not wanting to hire in certain geos, and me not wanting to relocate to the USA or London)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is that would be catastrophic for Anthropic.
Who cares about Anthropic? That's the guys who are pushing for regulations to prevent people from using local models. The earlier they are gone the better
None of any of this is about national security, and I'm 100% convinced these companies don't actually have any qualms about surveillance. It's PR on the business side and typical Trump tribute-demanding on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this entire administration has been a constant stream of "important turning point for the US" moments
I think most, perhaps all of those "important turning points" aren't really important turning points but just business as usual.
It does kind of drive me nuts that people don't remember Bush very well, and give Obama and Biden passes on their own crimes.
That said, i do honestly believe that Trump has taken the level of corruption and abject cruelty to a new level. But this was inevitable; both parties have spent 50 years building this reality. I won't be surprised when the next Democrat also deports millions and starts illegal wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is threatening an ally business as usual? Tell me about all the times that recent presidents threatened a NATO ally...
Things change. Allies just used to be threatened in private. Even today, the UK, Canada, and others are supporting the US and Israel in taking down the regime. I’m not suggesting things haven’t or can’t change, but I am suggesting we haven’t seen any pivotal turning points, at least not yet.
But all the things that allow Trump to do that he's doing happened a long time ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing has changed in decades regarding this. People just like to pretend something new is happening, because they're extremely desperate to proclaim a fundamental turning / ending of the US (which is why every single event brings out those claims: this time is different! America will never recover from this! etc). US tech companies were previously forced into compliance with PRISM or threatened with destruction (se…
The US has already ended. It was destroyed in 9/11/2001. America is a shadow of its former self.
This has much broader implications for the US economy and rule of law in the US. 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.
Actually it doesn’t. Always been that way, the new generation hasn’t studied history as they should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rule in question is exactly meant for “this”, where “this” equals ”a complete ban on use of the product in any part of the government supply chain” . That’s why it has the name that it has. The rule itself has not been misconstrued. 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.
You keep trying to say this all over these comments but this isn’t how the law works, at all. I fully understand that they are using it to ban things from the supply chain. The law, however, is not “first find the effect you want, then find a law that results in that, then accuse them of that.” You can’t say someone murdered someone just because you want to put them in jail. You can’t use a law for banning supply cha…
Not sure what you think “the law” is, but no, this kind of thing happens all the time. Both political teams do it, regularly. Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton…all have routinely found an existing law or rule that allowed them to do what they want to do without legislation.
> The law, however, is not “first find the effect you want, then find a law that results in that, then accuse them of that.”
In this case, no, there’s no such restriction. The administration has pretty broad discretion. And again, this happens all the time.
Sorry, it sucks, but if you don’t like it, encourage politicians to stop delegating such broad authority to the executive branch.