upvote

points

by tintor5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby frumplestlatz4 hours ago|
next
[-]
We cannot subordinate our military’s decision making power — in any arena — to a private company.

Our military must also not be dependent on a private company that believes it has the moral prerogative to control our military’s decisions, and would have the technical capability to do so.

reply
upvoteby mitthrowaway21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Maybe the military should just seize the technology and nationalize the company then? Because clearly, paying a private party voluntarily entering into a contract on mutually-agreed upon terms is now a polite fiction that can be done away with.
reply
upvoteby RealFloridaMan3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The military is bound by contract, just like any other government agency. They entered into a contract, with these clauses well-known. This was OK because they have all the same problems every other organization uses AI for.

They could’ve just negotiate a new contract with OpenAI, without banning it from every government agency. But I’m sure that would’ve triggered some kind of extra clause and cost money…

Your entire statement lacks any type of fact.

reply
upvoteby spankalee3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This is ridiculous. Anthropic should be free to say the terms for using their service. It doesn't "subordinate" the military, and the military is far from some infallible, unquestionable force here.

If the military wants to use AI to autonomously kill people, they can - Anthropic is not stopping them - thy just can't with Anthropic's services.

The government retaliating by then claiming that any use of Anthropic is risk is an obvious farce. How would Anthropic be any less of a risk if they let Claude autonomously kill people?

reply
upvoteby hardbass4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No entity should have a right to dictate whether your private company does business with someone or not. The military can pound sand if they don't like your contract terms. That is if you believe in democracy and capitalism. If you don't, then it's not a problem to you.
reply
upvoteby ahtihn32 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Any private entity has that right though.

I, as a person, can decide I won't do business with a company that uses Anthropic models for whatever reason. I can even decide I won't do business with a company that relies on suppliers that use Anthropic.

This right applies to private companies too. Like Walmart could set contract terms that their suppliers aren't allowed to use AWS. The suppliers are free to accept those terms or not.

reply
upvoteby frumplestlatz4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You’re still absolutely free to do business with Anthropic.

Our military is simply choosing not to do business with them, or anyone that depends on them.

If you believed in democracy, you wouldn’t be supporting the EA-infected corporation that tried to make our democratic institutions subordinate to their corporate decision making.

reply
upvoteby RealFloridaMan3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That is not what they are doing. They could have just canceled the contract and paid the exit clause. This is retaliation, because Anthropic would not move on their pre-negotiated terms. As a result, they are now been from being used anywhere in the US government.

Let me ask you this, if Anthropic did allow them to use it for surveillance… do you think it would stop at the Pentagon?

reply
upvoteby hardbass4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I support any and all moves that empower private persons and corporations over the infinite force of governments. They didn't try to make anyone subordinate to anything. They made a proposal. Trump pissed and generally made a mess as he usually does and then they randomly declared them a supply chain treat.
reply
upvoteby themaninthedark2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Right but the military wants to be able to use a tool they are paying for in all cases, not just ones the manufacturer thinks they should.

If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now.

Edit add: What is targeting? What is surveillance?

If someone in the intelligence analysis department uses AI to generate a report, then someone else uses that report for targeting did they just break the terms? Where is that line?

Much easier for the Pentagon to say no.

reply
upvoteby cptroot2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Your "but then" is off-base. This is selling steel for the express purpose of nuclear reactors, with a contractual clause against its use in tanks, and the US government deciding that it doesn't feel like abiding by the rules in the contract.
reply
upvoteby Dylan168072 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now.

They sure as hell shouldn't! Selling steel for any use except ships and tanks is a little odd but it's not a risk.

(I'm ignoring the "but then" because this was about future sales not previous ones.)

reply