7 ms·

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictat

by gclawes 7mo ago

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

bdangubic 7mo ago
[flagged]
lucaslazarus 7mo ago
[flagged]
theptip 7mo ago
Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.
- grosswait 7mo ago
  Every company is free to state their terms of use, but not all have been upheld when challenged
  - otterley 7mo ago
    What’s your angle here? I’m genuinely curious. If the government told you that you had to muck out portable bathrooms with your bare hands even if you didn’t want to, wouldn’t you find that objectionable?
    - alex43578 7mo ago
      I’m sure they would find it objectionable, just like how many reacted negatively to the draft, but it was imposed anyways. The government should have far less control and power over individuals and businesses than it currently does.
    - lynx97 7mo ago
      Well, the rates are different from country to country, but everyone knows taxes. I really don't want to give away almost 40% of my income... Does anyone care what I want or like?
      - otterley 7mo ago
        Taxes aren't forced labor or indentured servitude, and aren't prohibited in any democracies. They're imposed by law through the actions of our duly elected representatives.
  - theptip 7mo ago
    What grounds for challenge do you imagine here?
- alex43578 7mo ago
  Can I run a business and say “No use by insert race here”? If they don’t like it, they can shop somewhere else, right?
  - tenuousemphasis 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - alex43578 7mo ago
      If your argument is “every company is free to determine its terms of use”, except when told otherwise by the government, you’ve proven my point. The government is saying they need to provide unfettered access.
      - JCharante 7mo ago
        “Told” is different than it being written into law. Go update the laws first and then you have a valid argument
        alex43578 7mo ago
        So they'll be able to use the already-written DPA, right?
        theptip 7mo ago
        They can try, but: 1) it’s pretty transparently obvious that Anthropic is not a supply chain risk, and that this is a retaliatory gesture. So I don’t support that usage. 2) if they do try, Congress or SCOTUS could well reduce or remove that authority. I give the Trump admin enough credit to assume that they are considering carefully which laws they spend in this way, DPA is a valuable chip they may need to spend for something more valuable than Hegseth’s temper tantrum.
  - FrancisMoodie 7mo ago
    Ofcourse we're gonna compare being against the use of technology for Mass surveillance/Autonomous weapons with being racist, like wtf kind of argument is this? So because businesses can't implement racist policies they shouldn't be allowed to have any policies concerning the use of their tech? Mindblowing.
- blitzar 7mo ago
  > Every company * * excludes tiktok
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
bathtub365 7mo ago
There are a couple of notable Supreme Court cases in this area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis
singleshot_ 7mo ago
Same reason they cant quarter troops in your house: the law
Hnrobert42 7mo ago
Because the government is here to serve us. Not the other way around.
- no-dr-onboard 7mo ago
  The government has a responsibility to protect its constituents. Sometimes that requires collaboration. This isn’t hard.
  - epistasis 7mo ago
    Is this one of those times? Seems pretty clear it's not. The third amendment is there for a reason. I am a third amendment absolutist and willing to put my life on the line to defend it.
  - staticassertion 7mo ago
    I wonder what you can't justify this way.
    - no-dr-onboard 7mo ago
      That’s a good question. Assuming a righteous and just government: The government couldn’t justify the killing of innocent civilians. The government couldn’t justify the killing of the unborn. The government couldn’t justify eugenics. There are objective moral absolutes.
      - staticassertion 7mo ago
        Wow, that's just so many assertions and none of them follow from the statement that the government can break the law in order to protect its citizens. In all of those cases I can just say "they can if it is to protect its citizens". Remember, the premise here is that you are performing the act in order to protect constituents. So before all of those statements you have to assume "They are doing this in the genuine believe that it protects constituents". The argument so far seems to be "They can do anything, but there are moral absolutes that I can personally list out, and in those cases they can't do those things". That is a hilariously stupid view of the world but sadly a common one. Even if I grant moral objectivity, I reject that you have epistemic access to it so it's moot.
throw0101c 7mo ago
> Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used? Well: """ Imagine that you created an LLC, and that you are the sole owner and employee. One day your LLC receives a letter from the government that says, "here is a contract to go mine heavy rare earth elements in Alaska." You don't want to do that, so you reply, "no thanks!" There is no retaliation. Everything is fine. You declined the terms of a contract. You live in a civilized capitalist republic. We figured this stuff out centuries ago, and today we have bigger fish to fry. """ * https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638 https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638
- grosswait 7mo ago
  This is a terrible analogy. Imagine you’re an LLC that signed a contract to mine minerals, but your terms state you’d only mine in areas you felt safe. OSHA says it’s safe but you disagree, because….. any number of reason unknowable to an outsider. Maybe you just don’t like this OSHA leadership. That is more like what is happening. Signing a contract with Anthropic assuming they wouldn’t rug pull over their own moral soapbox was mistake number one. I love anthropic products and heavily use them daily, but they need to get off their high horse. They complain they’re being robbed by Chinese labs - robbed of what they stole from copyright holders. Anthropic doesn’t have the moral high ground they try to claim.
  - otterley 7mo ago
    The (hypothetical) contract is clear, though. The condition is stated in objective terms: “in areas you felt safe.” If the Government agrees to this, then they should be bound just like any private counterparty would. If the Government didn’t agree to this, they should have negotiated that term out in favor of their preferred terms.
    - grosswait 7mo ago
      I agree. Which is why I said signing a contract with anthropic was a terrible idea in the first place.
randerson 7mo ago
Because technology companies know more about their product's capabilities and limitations than a former Fox News host? And because they know there's a risk of mass civilian casualties if you put an LLM in control of the world's most expensive military equipment?
etchalon 7mo ago
[flagged]

by gclawes 7mo ago

bdangubic 7mo ago

[flagged]

lucaslazarus 7mo ago

[flagged]

theptip 7mo ago

Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.

grosswait 7mo ago
Every company is free to state their terms of use, but not all have been upheld when challenged
- otterley 7mo ago
  What’s your angle here? I’m genuinely curious. If the government told you that you had to muck out portable bathrooms with your bare hands even if you didn’t want to, wouldn’t you find that objectionable?
  - alex43578 7mo ago
    I’m sure they would find it objectionable, just like how many reacted negatively to the draft, but it was imposed anyways. The government should have far less control and power over individuals and businesses than it currently does.
  - lynx97 7mo ago
    Well, the rates are different from country to country, but everyone knows taxes. I really don't want to give away almost 40% of my income... Does anyone care what I want or like?
    - otterley 7mo ago
      Taxes aren't forced labor or indentured servitude, and aren't prohibited in any democracies. They're imposed by law through the actions of our duly elected representatives.
- theptip 7mo ago
  What grounds for challenge do you imagine here?
alex43578 7mo ago
Can I run a business and say “No use by insert race here”? If they don’t like it, they can shop somewhere else, right?
- tenuousemphasis 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - alex43578 7mo ago
    If your argument is “every company is free to determine its terms of use”, except when told otherwise by the government, you’ve proven my point. The government is saying they need to provide unfettered access.
    - JCharante 7mo ago
      “Told” is different than it being written into law. Go update the laws first and then you have a valid argument
      - alex43578 7mo ago
        So they'll be able to use the already-written DPA, right?
        theptip 7mo ago
        They can try, but: 1) it’s pretty transparently obvious that Anthropic is not a supply chain risk, and that this is a retaliatory gesture. So I don’t support that usage. 2) if they do try, Congress or SCOTUS could well reduce or remove that authority. I give the Trump admin enough credit to assume that they are considering carefully which laws they spend in this way, DPA is a valuable chip they may need to spend for something more valuable than Hegseth’s temper tantrum.
- FrancisMoodie 7mo ago
  Ofcourse we're gonna compare being against the use of technology for Mass surveillance/Autonomous weapons with being racist, like wtf kind of argument is this? So because businesses can't implement racist policies they shouldn't be allowed to have any policies concerning the use of their tech? Mindblowing.
blitzar 7mo ago
> Every company * * excludes tiktok

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

bathtub365 7mo ago

There are a couple of notable Supreme Court cases in this area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

singleshot_ 7mo ago

Same reason they cant quarter troops in your house: the law

Hnrobert42 7mo ago

Because the government is here to serve us. Not the other way around.

no-dr-onboard 7mo ago
The government has a responsibility to protect its constituents. Sometimes that requires collaboration. This isn’t hard.
- epistasis 7mo ago
  Is this one of those times? Seems pretty clear it's not. The third amendment is there for a reason. I am a third amendment absolutist and willing to put my life on the line to defend it.
- staticassertion 7mo ago
  I wonder what you can't justify this way.
  - no-dr-onboard 7mo ago
    That’s a good question. Assuming a righteous and just government: The government couldn’t justify the killing of innocent civilians. The government couldn’t justify the killing of the unborn. The government couldn’t justify eugenics. There are objective moral absolutes.
    - staticassertion 7mo ago
      Wow, that's just so many assertions and none of them follow from the statement that the government can break the law in order to protect its citizens. In all of those cases I can just say "they can if it is to protect its citizens". Remember, the premise here is that you are performing the act in order to protect constituents. So before all of those statements you have to assume "They are doing this in the genuine believe that it protects constituents". The argument so far seems to be "They can do anything, but there are moral absolutes that I can personally list out, and in those cases they can't do those things". That is a hilariously stupid view of the world but sadly a common one. Even if I grant moral objectivity, I reject that you have epistemic access to it so it's moot.

throw0101c 7mo ago

> Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used? Well: """ Imagine that you created an LLC, and that you are the sole owner and employee. One day your LLC receives a letter from the government that says, "here is a contract to go mine heavy rare earth elements in Alaska." You don't want to do that, so you reply, "no thanks!" There is no retaliation. Everything is fine. You declined the terms of a contract. You live in a civilized capitalist republic. We figured this stuff out centuries ago, and today we have bigger fish to fry. """ * https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638 https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638

grosswait 7mo ago
This is a terrible analogy. Imagine you’re an LLC that signed a contract to mine minerals, but your terms state you’d only mine in areas you felt safe. OSHA says it’s safe but you disagree, because….. any number of reason unknowable to an outsider. Maybe you just don’t like this OSHA leadership. That is more like what is happening. Signing a contract with Anthropic assuming they wouldn’t rug pull over their own moral soapbox was mistake number one. I love anthropic products and heavily use them daily, but they need to get off their high horse. They complain they’re being robbed by Chinese labs - robbed of what they stole from copyright holders. Anthropic doesn’t have the moral high ground they try to claim.
- otterley 7mo ago
  The (hypothetical) contract is clear, though. The condition is stated in objective terms: “in areas you felt safe.” If the Government agrees to this, then they should be bound just like any private counterparty would. If the Government didn’t agree to this, they should have negotiated that term out in favor of their preferred terms.
  - grosswait 7mo ago
    I agree. Which is why I said signing a contract with anthropic was a terrible idea in the first place.

randerson 7mo ago

Because technology companies know more about their product's capabilities and limitations than a former Fox News host? And because they know there's a risk of mass civilian casualties if you put an LLM in control of the world's most expensive military equipment?

etchalon 7mo ago

[flagged]