4 ms·

IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it. From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and i

IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it. From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and it makes sense. Here's an analogy that I think is apt: We use Solidworks, Altium Designer and JetBrains tools for our work. Imagine a scenario where each of these companies has license terms that restrict their use to certain domains or types of products they --for whatever reason; it does not have to be political-- do not agree with. Further imagine that the restrictions are different for each product, creating a virtual mine field of sorts. Now imagine that every supplier adopts this philosophy over time; hardware, software, tools, components, fabricators, contractors, consultants, etc. Well, very soon you will have to conclude that the only job you will be able to do is drive for Uber, if that. The DoD/DoW is massive and massively multidisciplinary. They simply cannot afford to have vendors create no-go mine fields for them. It quickly becomes an unmanageable pain in the ass. So, yeah, under those circumstances, I would not touch Anthropic with a ten foot pole duct-taped to another ten foot pole. It simply would not be a reasonable decision to work with them.

NorthSouthNorth 1mo ago
Which is very different to labelling them a national security risk instead of just not awarding them contracts.
- Analemma_ 1mo ago
  Every single person I've seen trying to defend the government's actions in this case has carefully elided the difference between "not awarding them a contract" (which would've been fine) and "using the law to try and destroy their business". The fact that almost nobody on the government's side has actually spoken honestly about the facts of the case makes it pretty obvious who is in the right and wrong here.
- robomartin 1mo ago
  It is a security risk. That's the problem you create if you allow every single vendor from imposing their own rules. The contracts are not awarded because doing so would create a security risk. I don't know what analogy would drive the point home. Imagine a password management system where the people running the company have an ideology that leads them to believe that their system should not allow anyone to secure anything used in military applications. Well, that's a security risk. And no contracts should be granted. Cause and effect. There's no confusion here.
  - mitthrowaway2 1mo ago
    OK. I'm imagining such a password management system. I don't see why it makes sense for the government to ban Microsoft from using that company's password management system for Minecraft, just because Microsoft also happens to sell Microsoft Office to the DoD.
cperciva 1mo ago
It's entirely reasonable for the USG to say "we don't want to use a product with guardrails". Plenty of people have gotten annoyed with Fable and done exactly that! But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step.
- robomartin 1mo ago
  > But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step. What do you mean? You and I are not prohibited from using Anthropic products unless we do work for DoD/DoW that collides with their usage restrictions.
mitthrowaway2 1mo ago
If Domino's Pizza offered to deliver pizza to the Pentagon but declined in their terms of service to deliver pizza-box-shaped packages to Tehran, do you think it would be a fair and proportionate response for the DoD to ban anyone in the defense supply chain from ever ordering pizza from Domino's?
- robomartin 1mo ago
  Your analogy makes no sense. At all.

NorthSouthNorth 1mo ago

Which is very different to labelling them a national security risk instead of just not awarding them contracts.

Analemma_ 1mo ago
Every single person I've seen trying to defend the government's actions in this case has carefully elided the difference between "not awarding them a contract" (which would've been fine) and "using the law to try and destroy their business". The fact that almost nobody on the government's side has actually spoken honestly about the facts of the case makes it pretty obvious who is in the right and wrong here.
robomartin 1mo ago
It is a security risk. That's the problem you create if you allow every single vendor from imposing their own rules. The contracts are not awarded because doing so would create a security risk. I don't know what analogy would drive the point home. Imagine a password management system where the people running the company have an ideology that leads them to believe that their system should not allow anyone to secure anything used in military applications. Well, that's a security risk. And no contracts should be granted. Cause and effect. There's no confusion here.
- mitthrowaway2 1mo ago
  OK. I'm imagining such a password management system. I don't see why it makes sense for the government to ban Microsoft from using that company's password management system for Minecraft, just because Microsoft also happens to sell Microsoft Office to the DoD.

cperciva 1mo ago

It's entirely reasonable for the USG to say "we don't want to use a product with guardrails". Plenty of people have gotten annoyed with Fable and done exactly that! But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step.

robomartin 1mo ago
> But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step. What do you mean? You and I are not prohibited from using Anthropic products unless we do work for DoD/DoW that collides with their usage restrictions.

mitthrowaway2 1mo ago

If Domino's Pizza offered to deliver pizza to the Pentagon but declined in their terms of service to deliver pizza-box-shaped packages to Tehran, do you think it would be a fair and proportionate response for the DoD to ban anyone in the defense supply chain from ever ordering pizza from Domino's?

robomartin 1mo ago
Your analogy makes no sense. At all.