2 ms·

How you characterize the behavior, Mafia or not, is of course your opinion, and I am sure if you are a voter/stakeholder you'd consider that in your political a

by tgma 8mo ago

How you characterize the behavior, Mafia or not, is of course your opinion, and I am sure if you are a voter/stakeholder you'd consider that in your political activity, but I'd appreciate if you clarify what you mean but your story and timeline, so I ask again, are you suggesting the US government has breached the contract they already signed?

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
The comment you replied to is pretty clear: Yes, the US government seeks to void the contract they already signed. That said, many government contracts include some variant of "we can cancel at any time for any reason".
- Analemma_ 8mo ago
  It's actually even worse than that: Anthropic already agrees that the Pentagon can walk away from the contract and stop using Claude if they want to, there's no dispute there. What the Pentagon wants is to force Anthropic into a new set of terms which cannot be refused.
  - tgma 8mo ago
    [flagged]
Analemma_ 8mo ago
I don't know why you keep bringing up breach of contract, it is not relevant to this discussion at all. No, the government did not breach the contract AFAIK, they just decided they didn't like it anymore, and instead of either withdrawing or entering into a negotiation about it, they decided to use threats to try and get their terms at metaphorical gunpoint. The actual terms of the contract aren't even relevant, this is purely a matter of tort law and whether you can bully someone into a new contact because you woke up one day and decided you didn't like the one you agreed to.
- tgma 8mo ago
  Because you implied it here: > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. They want to "forcibly amend" is either within their rights per original contract, or not. One is fair game, the other is not.
  - wasabi991011 8mo ago
    I did not read that as implying breach of contract, and AI don't understand your explanation. Isn't agreeing to amend a contract always within their rights?

by tgma 8mo ago

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago

The comment you replied to is pretty clear: Yes, the US government seeks to void the contract they already signed. That said, many government contracts include some variant of "we can cancel at any time for any reason".

Analemma_ 8mo ago
It's actually even worse than that: Anthropic already agrees that the Pentagon can walk away from the contract and stop using Claude if they want to, there's no dispute there. What the Pentagon wants is to force Anthropic into a new set of terms which cannot be refused.
- tgma 8mo ago
  [flagged]

Analemma_ 8mo ago

I don't know why you keep bringing up breach of contract, it is not relevant to this discussion at all. No, the government did not breach the contract AFAIK, they just decided they didn't like it anymore, and instead of either withdrawing or entering into a negotiation about it, they decided to use threats to try and get their terms at metaphorical gunpoint. The actual terms of the contract aren't even relevant, this is purely a matter of tort law and whether you can bully someone into a new contact because you woke up one day and decided you didn't like the one you agreed to.

tgma 8mo ago
Because you implied it here: > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. They want to "forcibly amend" is either within their rights per original contract, or not. One is fair game, the other is not.
- wasabi991011 8mo ago
  I did not read that as implying breach of contract, and AI don't understand your explanation. Isn't agreeing to amend a contract always within their rights?