[nradov]

That's a total non sequitur. If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.

Personally I favor a less interventionist foreign policy. But that change can only come about through the political process, not by unaccountable corporate employees making arbitrary decisions about how certain products can be used.

[ahtihn]

> But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.

Of course it is.

Think about it this way: if you could guarantee that the military suffers no human losses when attacking a foreign country, do you think that's going to more or less foreign interventions?

The tools available to the military influence policy, these things are linked.

US military is already overwhelmingly powerful, there's 0 reason to make it even more powerful.

[nradov]

That's so delusional. The US military is currently preparing for a potential conflict with China to stop an invasion with Taiwan. They don't have anything near "overwhelming force" for that mission: recent simulations put it about even at best. People who believe they don't need any improved autonomous weapons are simply uninformed.

[ahtihn]

Why would the US enter into direct conflict with a nuclear power over a country they aren't even formally allied with?

If the US actually cared they'd formally place Taiwan under nuclear protection.

[ashtonshears]

You are claiming all americans must happily create weapons. Thats a silly statement to most americans and humans

[nradov]

Don't presume to put words in my mouth. I flagged your comment for lying about my claims.

Individual Americans aren't slaves. They can do as they please and are under no obligation to help build weapons for warfighters. But I think it's ridiculous and offensive for a US corporation to presume to take on a role as moral arbiters by placing arbitrary limits on US government use of certain products. There are larger issues here that need to be addressed through the political process, not through commercial software license agreements.

[ashtonshears]

Sure, it wasnt fair for me to claim you said that, so I apologize. It was rude of me to frame my position in that manner, and wasnt intended maliciously.

I meant to suggest that corps being unable to take those positions results in such a world for Americans at those corps

[yunwal]

> I think it's ridiculous and offensive for a US corporation to presume to take on a role as moral arbiters

A corporation is just a group of people. Anthropic isn't even public, and therefore it's directors aren't subject to any sort of fiduciary duty enshrined in law. They can collectively act as they wish.

[radlad]

> If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.

It is an ethical dilemma: believing an armed force will act unethically is in fact a valid reason to refuse to arm them. You are taking a nationalistic view regarding the worth of life.

And if you believe it is unethical to arm them, it is rational to use whatever leverage you have available to you - such as refusing to sell your company's product.

Furthermore, one of the two points at issue was regarding surveiling civilians.

[yunwal]

> that change can only come about through the political process

What, to you, is the political process? Why is wielding your economic leverage to incite change illegitimate to you?