4 ms·
A more charitable interpretation might be that a guild would not be expected to passively allow such a situation to continue to exist. I think you'd expect a gu
by fc417fc802 5mo ago
A more charitable interpretation might be that a guild would not be expected to passively allow such a situation to continue to exist. I think you'd expect a guild to directly contract for the desired tools or failing that to move into production themselves.
- estearum 5mo agoSure! And Anthropic isn't preventing other people from making offensive cyber models. "The guild" is absolutely free to go seek other vendors if Anthropic declines to sell to them.
- lazide 5mo agoI take it you didn’t see the announcement where Anthropic is trying to get all new development banned, so they are ‘sole source’? [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/04/worlds-most-valuable-ai-start-up-calls-for-global-freeze-in/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/04/worlds-most-...]
- estearum 5mo agoRegulatory capture: A vendor using regulation to prevent potential competitors from producing or selling competitive goods or services What we're discussing in this thread: A customer compelling a vendor to produce and sell a specific good or service Do you think these are similar? The fact that Anthropic is doing one thing (regulatory capture) is entirely irrelevant as to whether they're allowed to engage in a completely different thing (declining to sell their services/products to specific people).