[hirako2000]

It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue.

The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.

[corford]

If anthropic is saying “you can use our models for anything other than domestic spying or autonomous weapons” and the pentagon replies “we will use other models then”, I'd say Anthropic are the patriots here...

[6510]

I like the endless consideration for spying on allies. or wait...

[corford]

One battle at a time

[Loughla]

I'm guessing you're being down voted because people don't know if you think that's a good thing or not. I do not think it's a good thing. Do you?

[hirako2000]

I absolutely do not think that's a good thing. Was stating some sad facts.

[Loughla]

I had the same thing happen to me when I posted about how unbridled capitalism requires external costs in the form of pollution and what not. I didn't make it clear that I thought it was a terrible truth.

Once the hive decides you're being serious without checking, they turn the down vote button into an I disagree with you button.

This is actually one of the reasons I left Reddit. I hate to see it here.

[YeezyMode]

It likely helps to take in the cultural moment or context around the statements or the nature of the statements you're making. It's fine to state a fact but it's also helpful to make it clear whether you are saying "it is what it is " or "I wish things were different" or "I am doing X, Y, and Z to try and help and I recommend others do so". Jokes are an exception and I think misunderstandings are fine there. But it's unreasonable to think that on the Internet, people will "check to see if you are serious".

[hirako2000]

The comment was serious. It didn't feel the need to take a side.

The DoD declaration reflects a certain context, we had the patriotic act, a whistleblower exiled in Russia for defending the constitution, etc etc. We didn't need to wait a MAGA movement to be expecting such comment from the DoD.

If hackernews threads turn into mouthpieces for opinions then we have no use posting anything in here.

The comments are naively claiming commercial agreements make Anthropic right, as if contracts had more weight than the constitution.

I would rather call out a "virtuous signalling" entity in the valley simply standing for something aligned with civil liberties, and using it as a political stance in what nobody would deny is an unfortunate polarized political climate.

What to make of OpenAI then. Should I give my opinion that they took a falsely constitutional stance, or simply made for-profit move to land a juicy government contract, while making the public think they kept the same red lines as their main competitor?

Or just stick to the fact: The DoD will, as always, get away with its liberticide demands to get what it wants, because other big tech will fall inline.

[antonvs]

What's your definition of "patriotism" and why do private companies need to be "patriotic"? How do you reconcile this with the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and so on?

The US isn't Iran, North Korea, or even China, as much as some people, including the US president, seem want to emulate those models.

[stackghost]

>The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated.

According to whom?

[zephen]

He's reading the room.

No, not this room. The one with Hegseth in it.

Look at his other comments. He's not wrong.

[lkbm]

No one cares if the Pentagon refuses to do business with Anthropic. But Hegseth has declared that effective immediately, no one else working with the DoD can either--which includes the companies hosting Anthropics models (Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet).

So it's six months to phase out use of Anthropic at the DoD, but the people hosting the models have to stop "immediately".

Which miiight impact the amount of inference the DoD would be able to get done in those six months.

[bjh13]

> So it's six months to phase out use of Anthropic at the DoD, but the people hosting the models have to stop "immediately".

> Which miiight impact the amount of inference the DoD would be able to get done in those six months.

Which might not be by accident looking at the Truth Social posts which state "Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow."

I would not be surprised to see this being used as an excuse to nationalize Anthropic.

[AnimalMuppet]

To attempt to nationalize Anthropic. I'm sure there would be court cases filed almost immediately, restraining orders, months of cases and then appeals and then appeals of the appeals.

[Sharlin]

I think you were downvoted due to your use of "patriotism" (specifically without scare quotes) because that word is usually used with an intended positive connotation. So the reader gets the impression that you think that submitting to the DoD’s wishes is how things ought to be.