upvote

points

by himata411312 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby dminik10 hours ago|
next
[-]
Yeah, it was funny seeing a bunch of people going like "Anthropic is fighting for privacy" meanwhile I'm like "Uhh, what about the other 8 billion people?"

On second thought, it's not funny.

reply
upvoteby beng-nl8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As a thought experiment - such shocks (govt pressure to use models for bad purposes and govt excluding access to non-Americans) coming early in the ‘ai revolution’ will wake up the rest of the world sooner that they have to get their act together to stay competitive without relying on USA. Just like with nato.
reply
upvoteby nerdsniper12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The part that gets me about anthropic red lines is "of Americans", okay so the rest of the civilized world is up for grabs then? It's okay to destabalize allies with sabotaged tests (in machine learning) and data exfiltration outside America?

Regardless of Anthropic's "moral" position (inasmuch as a corporation can even have morals) against spying on non-Americans, they would have no way to enforce that limitation against the government because non-citizens outside of the USA have no protections from the intrusions of the US government.

reply
upvoteby cbolton9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They can include these limitations in a contract which can be enforced like any contract.
reply
upvoteby nerdsniper5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
FISA Section 702 (50 U.S.C. § 1881a) or CLOUD Act could be used to override any contractual terms that US government agencies may have agreed to. Those clauses would be unenforceable / unexecutable.

More generally it would be overpowered by the Sovereign Acts Doctrine.

The facts aren’t identical to the 2008 Yahoo FISCR case but that case sets the tone for how any clauses like this would just be brushed under the rug.

reply
upvoteby NewsaHackO6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't think they can, at least if they are making an argument for why the Defense Production Act should not apply to them. Their original argument is that they will not help with anything that is unconstitutional, such as the unlawful spying on American citizens, without a warrant.
reply
upvoteby 5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby jazzyjackson6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don’t think Defense Production Act lets the government takeover what you produce, just that if you sell something you have to prioritize selling to the Feds. There is also precedent that code is speech and the government cannot compel speech (this came up during the debacle where FBI wanted a backdoor to unlock iPhones and Apple said no, we’re not building that)
reply
upvoteby nerdsniper5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It’s slightly nuanced, but during COVID-19 the DPA was applied to GM for production of ventilator machines. GM had not yet ever made any ventilator machines, and had only just one week earlier begun laying the groundwork to partner with Ventec Life Systems to look into retooling their automotive electronics factory in Kokomo, IN to produce ventilators.

I agree that the Apple case indicates that there’s a lot of uncertainty around this type of issue, at least post 1953 when title II of the DPA expired after Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

reply
upvoteby oefrha6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> anthropic red lines

Alleged red lines. Could be just talking points for garnering sympathy. Big tech aren’t exactly known for being truthful, especially big tech partnering with esteemed Palantir.

reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby throwaw122 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The part that gets me about anthropic red lines is "of Americans", okay so the rest of the civilized world is up for grabs then?

And this is coming from a CEO who constantly claims moral superiority and advances the idea that China is bad

reply
upvoteby avadodin10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
These companies are so good at selling their product's likely incompetence as possibly intentional subversion.
reply