I think in practice contracts to provide civilian personnel to the Pentagon contain clauses limiting the nature and location of the work - the Pentagon can’t contract for a clerical assistant in DC and then demand they go to Iraq to provide physical security - it violates the nature of the agreed work and the agreed location.
But contracts for personnel generally don’t contain restrictions on use beyond that. If the clerical assistant for DC is asked to provide clerical help to a military planning team who are planning an assault on Chicago, they (and their employer) don’t have legal grounds to refuse. If you are contracted to provide clerical assistance to military planners, you can’t legally say “Baghdad is fine, but Chicago is a no”. Saying that is a breach of contract-unless the courts rule that planning the assault was itself illegal, and I doubt current SCOTUS majority would
> in practice contracts to provide civilian personnel to the Pentagon contain clauses limiting the nature and location of the work
Which is what Anthropic was seeking to do. To be clear, I’m unsympathetic to Anthropic’s automated kill-decision objection. But I’m very sympathetic to their no-domestic-use requirement. And that aligns cleanly with precedent for civilian personnel having limits on “the nature and location” of their work.
> I’m unsympathetic to Anthropic’s automated kill-decision objection. But I’m very sympathetic to their no-domestic-use requirement.
One inherent issue with this set of choices is that you're OK with getting killed upon a decision made by a foreign AI agent.
Sadly, such a loophole already exists[0] and means that your own administration wouldn't be spying/executing you with AI, but oops - some ally (not even an adversary!) might on their behalf.
legally and in practice, they cannot. Even considering the 4th amendment, in a time of war the military can commandeer a service as long as they are compensated.
But contracts for personnel generally don’t contain restrictions on use beyond that. If the clerical assistant for DC is asked to provide clerical help to a military planning team who are planning an assault on Chicago, they (and their employer) don’t have legal grounds to refuse. If you are contracted to provide clerical assistance to military planners, you can’t legally say “Baghdad is fine, but Chicago is a no”. Saying that is a breach of contract-unless the courts rule that planning the assault was itself illegal, and I doubt current SCOTUS majority would