3 ms·

I just wish there was a stronger source on this. I am inclined to agree you and the source you cited, but unfortunately > [1] This story requires some reading

I just wish there was a stronger source on this. I am inclined to agree you and the source you cited, but unfortunately > [1] This story requires some reading between the lines - the exact text of the contract isn’t available - but something like it is suggested by the way both sides have been presenting the negotiations. I deal with far too many people who won't believe me without 10 bullet-proof sources but get very angry with me if I won't take their word without a source :(

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
Those people are dealing with you in bad faith, and you need to cut them off before they try to overthrow your government again.
- webnrrd2k 8mo ago
  Yeah, that should have been in the contract too -- no using our software to overthrow the government or to implement a fascist state.
johnfn 8mo ago
That's a fair point, but I think Dario's quote in GP corroborates ACX's story quite well: > "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."
- spuz 8mo ago
  Also, Trump's own words complaining about being forced to stick to Anthropic's terms of service: > The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution.
  - rubyfan 8mo ago
    His M.O. is to accuse his opponent of the very thing he is doing. It’s the party of bad-faith.
- mrandish 8mo ago
  > "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..." While I agree with Anthropic's position on this regardless, the original contract wording does matter in terms of making either the government look even more unreasonable or Anthropic look a little less reasonable. The issue is a subtle ambiguity in Dario's statement: "...have never been included in our contracts" because it leaves two possibilities: 1. those two conditions were explicitly mentioned and disallowed in the contract, or 2. they weren't in the contract itself - and are disallowed by Anthropic's Terms of Service and complying with the ToS is a condition in the contract (which would be typical). If that's the case, then it matters if the ToS disallowed those two uses at the time the original contract was signed, or if the ToS was revised since signing. Anthropic is still 100% in the right if the ToS disallowed these uses at the time of signing and the ToS was an explicit condition of the contract, since contracts often loop in the ToS as a condition while not precluding the ToS being updated. However, if the ToS was updated after contract signing and Anthropic added or expanded the wording of those two provisions, then the DoD, IMHO, has a tiny shred of justification to complain and stop using Anthropic. Of course, going much further and banning the entire US government (and contractors) from using Anthropic for any use, including all the ones where these two provisions don't matter - is egregiously punitive and shitty. While the contract wording itself may be subject to NDA, it would be helpful if Anthropic's statements could be a bit more precise. For example, if Dario had said "have always been disallowed in our contracts" this ambiguity wouldn't exist.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    It does not matter. If Anthropic had been precise in this narrow way, there would have been some other nitpick to raise. You're trying desperately to find a way that things can be at least a little normal, and I really do get it. It would be great if such a way existed. But it doesn't. I recommend you take a social media break like I'm about to, take the time you need to mourn the era of normal politics, and come back with a full understanding that the US government is not pursuing normal policy objectives with bad decisions. They hate you and they hate me for not being on their side, and their primary goal is to ensure that we're as miserable as they can make us.
  - drawnwren 8mo ago
- hbbio 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - edmundsauto 8mo ago
    In this case, do you really believe that we should trust an EA less than this administration? EA as bad people is a stereotype; corruption, fraud, and breaking the law is the standard MO for this administration. (Or maybe it’s catchier to respond glibly with “never trust a child rapist and convicted felon.”)
    - hbbio 8mo ago
      Not comparing. Sometimes, there are 2 bad apples.
      - edmundsauto 8mo ago
        In this case, the choice is between the two apples, so I’d pick the one less obviously rotten. Sadly that is the current administration that operates in pure lawlessness.
gcanyon 8mo ago
This administration needs the benefit of the doubt always. This administration deserves the benefit of the doubt never.
to11mtm 8mo ago
I think a big question mark here, is whether anything said on Anthropic's side if in the framing of "We have a thing going on that we are trying to communicate around where a canary notice if it existed would no longer be updated"

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago

Those people are dealing with you in bad faith, and you need to cut them off before they try to overthrow your government again.

webnrrd2k 8mo ago
Yeah, that should have been in the contract too -- no using our software to overthrow the government or to implement a fascist state.

johnfn 8mo ago

That's a fair point, but I think Dario's quote in GP corroborates ACX's story quite well: > "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."

spuz 8mo ago
Also, Trump's own words complaining about being forced to stick to Anthropic's terms of service: > The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution.
- rubyfan 8mo ago
  His M.O. is to accuse his opponent of the very thing he is doing. It’s the party of bad-faith.
mrandish 8mo ago
> "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..." While I agree with Anthropic's position on this regardless, the original contract wording does matter in terms of making either the government look even more unreasonable or Anthropic look a little less reasonable. The issue is a subtle ambiguity in Dario's statement: "...have never been included in our contracts" because it leaves two possibilities: 1. those two conditions were explicitly mentioned and disallowed in the contract, or 2. they weren't in the contract itself - and are disallowed by Anthropic's Terms of Service and complying with the ToS is a condition in the contract (which would be typical). If that's the case, then it matters if the ToS disallowed those two uses at the time the original contract was signed, or if the ToS was revised since signing. Anthropic is still 100% in the right if the ToS disallowed these uses at the time of signing and the ToS was an explicit condition of the contract, since contracts often loop in the ToS as a condition while not precluding the ToS being updated. However, if the ToS was updated after contract signing and Anthropic added or expanded the wording of those two provisions, then the DoD, IMHO, has a tiny shred of justification to complain and stop using Anthropic. Of course, going much further and banning the entire US government (and contractors) from using Anthropic for any use, including all the ones where these two provisions don't matter - is egregiously punitive and shitty. While the contract wording itself may be subject to NDA, it would be helpful if Anthropic's statements could be a bit more precise. For example, if Dario had said "have always been disallowed in our contracts" this ambiguity wouldn't exist.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  It does not matter. If Anthropic had been precise in this narrow way, there would have been some other nitpick to raise. You're trying desperately to find a way that things can be at least a little normal, and I really do get it. It would be great if such a way existed. But it doesn't. I recommend you take a social media break like I'm about to, take the time you need to mourn the era of normal politics, and come back with a full understanding that the US government is not pursuing normal policy objectives with bad decisions. They hate you and they hate me for not being on their side, and their primary goal is to ensure that we're as miserable as they can make us.
- drawnwren 8mo ago
hbbio 8mo ago
[flagged]
- edmundsauto 8mo ago
  In this case, do you really believe that we should trust an EA less than this administration? EA as bad people is a stereotype; corruption, fraud, and breaking the law is the standard MO for this administration. (Or maybe it’s catchier to respond glibly with “never trust a child rapist and convicted felon.”)
  - hbbio 8mo ago
    Not comparing. Sometimes, there are 2 bad apples.
    - edmundsauto 8mo ago
      In this case, the choice is between the two apples, so I’d pick the one less obviously rotten. Sadly that is the current administration that operates in pure lawlessness.

gcanyon 8mo ago

This administration needs the benefit of the doubt always. This administration deserves the benefit of the doubt never.

to11mtm 8mo ago

I think a big question mark here, is whether anything said on Anthropic's side if in the framing of "We have a thing going on that we are trying to communicate around where a canary notice if it existed would no longer be updated"