3 ms·
More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no
by calvinmorrison 8mo ago
More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoNote that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.
- RobotToaster 8mo agoPaper tigers
- gclawes 8mo agoThe government should be entitled to any lawful use of a product they purchase, not uses dictated solely by the provider. It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is, it's not up to these companies to dictate.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoProviders are free who they choose to do business with, or not do business with. Are you arguing that the government should be able to compel a provider to allow their use when it’s well documented the government does not respect nor adhere to the rule of law? I think you misunderstand commerce and contract law.
- alex43578 8mo agoProviders are bound by plenty of laws that alter how they do business or who they do business with. You can’t say “no disabled people at your business”. Hell, you can’t even say “no fake service animals at my restaurant”. Many in America also think you can’t say no girls in the Boy Scouts, or no men in a women’s locker room.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoWhen Congress makes the law, you will be accurate. At this time, there is no law that enables the US executive branch to achieve their desired outcome of strong arming Anthropic. > Many in America also think you can’t say no girls in the Boy Scouts, or no men in a women’s locker room. Your average American is low functioning, low education, vibe driven with a 6th-8th grade reading level, so this ("What Americans think") is not terribly relevant in my opinion. Provide statute and case law.
- alex43578 8mo agoDefense Production Act.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoWhich I'm sure will work as well as tariffs. Three years to go, good luck to them, slowing them down as proven exceptionally effective. Their efforts will likely die at midterms. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoAnthropic says it will challenge Pentagon supply chain risk designation in court -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189441 - February 2026
- mech422 8mo agoTerms of Service would like to have a word.... Not like limiting uses of products is anything new
- bdangubic 8mo ago[flagged]
- Forgeties79 8mo agoStrange take
- mediaman 8mo agoThe product is a service, and they agreed to a contract. Now they don't like the contract. Is your view that contracts with the government should be meaningless? That the government should be able to unilaterally, and without recourse, change any contract they previously agreed to for any reason, and the vendor should be forced at gunpoint to comply? If you do believe this, then what do you believe the second order effects will be when contracts with the government have no meaning? How will vendors to the government respond? Will this ultimately help or hinder the American government's efficacy?
- danorama 8mo agoSeriously. Hegseth trying to play “I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further” just shows this gang’s total lack of comprehension of second-order effects.
- isodev 8mo ago> It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is No, it’s up to the government to create policy and legislation that outlines what is lawful or not and install mechanisms to monitor and regulate usage. The fact that an arm of the government wants to go YOLO mode is merely a symptom of the deeper problem that this government is currently not effectual.
- grosswait 8mo agoDo you have any insight that what they want to do is YOLO, as opposed something your sure you’ll disagree with?
- isodev 8mo agoYOLO here refers to unsafe usage of LLMs. Your government is supposed to make legislation that protects all of its citizens, it’s not “what you agree with” game.
- rpdillon 8mo agoNot really. Services are provided on terms acceptable to both parties. This isn't about what's legal, it's about the terms of the service agreement.
- latexr 8mo ago> Respond accordingly. “Four key words (…) The only phrase that can genuinely make a weak bully go away, and that is: Fuck You, Make Me.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohPToBog_-g&t=1619s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohPToBog_-g&t=1619s
- fwipsy 8mo agoAnthropic has been pushing for commonsense AI regulation. Our current administration has refused to regulate AI and attempted to prevent state regulation. "The government doesn't have control of this technology" is an odd way to think about "the government can't force a company to apply this technology dangerously."
- polski-g 8mo agoBecause of Bernstein v DOJ, any AI company in the 9th circuit cannot be regulated because software is considered free speech.