undefined

points

[-]

You're saying a company's marketing department can casually get the United States Government to issue a national security passage, preventing sale or distribution of their product?

Was their ongoing designation as a "supply chain risk", which they are suing to overturn in court, also a marketing stunt?

Seems like a really strange thing to use that sort of power for - why not just get all your competition declared persona non-grata and seize monopoly power?

by mvkel16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I mean, it's literally what they've been asking for from day one.

by handoflixue16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Oh, cool, then surely you can point me towards the posts where they're celebrating this, or even actively advocating "please ban our product on a Friday with no notice or due process"?

by mvkel4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sure, from the horse's mouth: https://x.com/darioamodei/status/2064781775247950326?s=46

In interviews, this week alone, Dario has gone on record repeatedly about wanting to slow AI progress.

Anthropic silently degraded AI-research queries to Fable (they changed course on this, but they still thought it was a good idea)

And now that the government is taking them at their word, they're trying to drag GPT-5.5 and OpenAI down with them

Yes, the administration is being heavy-handed, but unfortunatley it's the logical end of telling everyone you built a "nuke" and that it's possible for people to use it against us

by mitthrowaway215 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Yes, it's marketing straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook. Convince everyone your product is dangerous, get government to ban it, and then... uh... pivot into adjacent market segments?