- 60comments
- 80comments
- 52comments
- 32comments
- 38comments
- 86comments
- 21comments
- 397comments
- 457comments
- 24comments
- 13comments
- 162comments
- 115comments
- 16comments
- 19comments
- 23comments
- 126comments
- 127comments
- 258comments
- 26comments
- 31comments
- 21comments
- 75comments
- 434comments
- 197comments
- 734comments
- 47comments
- 171comments
- 444comments
- 36comments
I wonder if this is going start being abused soon.
If I was Palantir or any other GOP aligned company, I would be completely against this. What's to stop a Democratic president from doing the same thing and destroying them?
I’m worried why many big companies aren’t worried about when the shoe is on the other foot.
None of them really believe our economic or political systems will be recognizable by 2029. Everyone's playing for position in the short takeoff.
I worry that they don't expect to leave power because they're acting like they will never be held accountable.
Can you clarify what a GOP aligned company is? Is that any company thats willing to do business with the U.S. government or any businesses thats willing to sell products in red states?
Maybe it's the companies that flank the US president at events in an attempt to gain favor? Or the companies that own private prisons that lobby for immoral policies on policing?
This doesn't appear to be unique to the GOP. Plenty of companies flank to whomever is in office. Even at that local government level. "Immoral policies" is subjective and would be in the eye of the beholder. If this was truely quantiative the U.S. wouldn't be a divided nation.
You mean the ones that have been doing so for many administrations across both parties?
Oil and gas and the GOP are one and the same.
Dems still subsidize O&G but they have other constituents they need to pay lip service to.
Banking and finance own both parties.
[delayed]
How would this destroy Anthropic, exactly?
The supreme court, I guess. What makes you think they would allow that as long as Trump cronies have the majority there?
Because the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.
I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. They are a private entity, so they can manage and change their primary system any way they want.
Sarbanes-Oxley? Dodd-Frank? ACA? Now I'm sure you (like, every other living human) has a ton of nitpicks and criticism of bills like that. But they're real and they passed and they're largely-to-wholely partisan creations of the Democratic policy apparatus (SOX looked very bipartisan and was passed under Bush, but the actual bill was written mostly by democratic staffers).
I mean, fine, you'd like different regulation. But they're responsible for basically all the corporate regulation active in the US regime.
Bothsidesism is a very poor tool for this particular argument. Work with your allies, please.
How’s ACA hard-hitting on corporations?
The 15/20 rules is what resulted in recorder profits in health insurance business, how’s this anti-corporate?
Then why do the 7 publicly listed health insurers have shitty shareholder returns?
If their profits are so good, their shares would be worth owning.
Oh, wait, is it because their profit margins are actually terrible (3% if lucky).
I would argue the democrats are more a process oriented party. They wouldn’t pull this shit because they care about process - so much so that they wouldn’t even consider half the stuff that’s going on now as it circumvents process.
What's to stop indeed? Some of us in the tech industry want the dems to slice and dice every tech company into irrelevance. They've betrayed society and they should be rightfully punished in fun + creative ways.
If the CEO of any other defense contractor did this, they'd be summarily fired by the board.
No defense contractor CEO in history has ever built a company this large, this fast. I don't think anyone is even thinking about firing Dario.
I still don't fully understand what this was about. It sounds like the DoD said they wanted unrestricted access to Anthropic's models, Anthropic refused, so the Pentagon declared that they wouldn't use them at all.
Isn't this basically what Anthropic wanted?
Nerds at Anthropic thought it was a good idea to tell the US Government "we're the shot callers," to which the USG replied "lol, no" and dropped them like 3rd period French.
It boils down to inexperience with a healthy dose of delusion on Anthropic's part.
How is it delusion? If they don't want to work with certain types of government contracts they have the right to state so. Its just thuggery from Trump.
This is straight up fascism. The DoD could have simply used a different provider but instead they're trying to destroy anthropic as a company.
Is it still fascism if they were properly elected and a court agreed with them?
No. This also means that no companies that work with th DoD can use anthropic models for any purpose.
Dario wanted to sell a $200 million chat bot to the US military and also dictate how it could be used. The government said no. And because of that Claude also cannot be deployed to the GenAI.mil AI infrastructure. This means that any sensitive work for the DoD that uses Claude will go through Anthropic's infrastructure, not the US military-hosted backend.
So yes obviously defense contractors are forbidden to use it.
If the government wanted to put iPhones in missiles, and apple said "we won't sell you iPhones to put in missiles" would the correct government response be to say "no government contractor can ever use an iPhone".
No, it does not mean that. I don't know why people have been making this claim. If you work for a company, let's call it X, and your work is not DOD related. Let's say you work on a social media service, then X has no reason (from this designation) to prevent you from using Anthropic, it will not impact their defense contracts at all.
Evidentially not - Anthropic want to do business with the US military, but on their own terms, telling the military what they can and cannot use it for.
Is that a problem? Are there any special rules (genuinely curious) that allow the military to hijack the management of a private firm?
Anthropic isn’t aligned with MAGA political ideology so they found an excuse to abuse power against them, more or less. The excuse was because Anthropic prohibits the use of their models for autonomous killing without a human in the loop they were declared a threat to national security on par with Iran or North Korea from a supply chain perspective in the military. OpenAI then rushed in and volunteered to build the slaughterbots ASAP, likely specially tuned to whomever Trump has taken a disliking to in his ambien stupors. Welcome to the future!
I agree with its designation. The security scans from Claude Mythos have been highly suspicious, wrong, and with a significant false positive rate. Claude also directly causes conflict within teams through excessive utility of "git blame" which weaponizes everyone against each other until only Claude has control. I've had very bad experiences with Claude and only Claude.
I don't think the majority of Claude users would agree with your assessment.
I think any user of Opus 5 would - it was literally a terrorist. Thank god they retired it for 5.5 superseding it!!
Supply chain risk seems a massive over-reaction, but understandable that the government doesn't want to commit to Anthropic controlled software for any critical military application if they can't 100% rely on Anthropic support in being able to use it as they see fit.
that's the mobster-loyalty mentality, and it's not how successful (read: desirable for the most people) governments function
Every government on Earth has legislation that allows it to force companies (and citizens) to do its bidding under certain circumstances. That’s pretty much the definition of a government.
But that's not at issue here. Obviously everyone agrees that the Pentagon can issue RFQ's to whatever specifications it wants. They can buy whatever they want, for the same reason that you or I are free to sell whatever we want.
The subject at hand is an attempt to use national security regulatory power to coerce Anthropic into selling a product it doesn't want to sell.