You're smoking something funny. They have just shown they are willing to designate a US company as essentially a foreign spy agency because they wanted to try and renegotiate a contract and didn't get what they wanted and that's your reaction?

▲

IG_Semmelweiss 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>>>> willing to designate a US company as essentially a foreign spy agency

Can you quote where I said that ?

▲

mcherm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You wrote:

> I'm glad Anthropic is getting a taste of their own medicine.

I took that to mean that you support the Pentagon's threat which essentially IS to label Anthropic as a national security threat, simply because they wouldn't give the Pentagon the right to use Anthropic's AI to operate weapons or spy on American citizens.

▲

IG_Semmelweiss 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Big fish tries to use their might to kill off small fish .

Anthropic uses big $$ it to become big fish in the AI pond.

Anthropic just found there are bigger fish in their pond.

I'm glad Anthropic have been reminded of this. THat doesn't mean I endorse the US govt using law to make companies a "national security threat" , although its an extremelt easy path from: monopolistic to -> active "national security threat".

Govt can, and in fact, has a mandate to, go after businesses when those businesses threaten a functioning market. Threatening is certainly part of that arsenal.

That's what anticompetitive rules are all about.

	▲	vonneumannstan 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are deliberately or accidentally confusing a lot of things here. This is not some anti-monopoly maneuver by the... DEPARTMENT OF WAR.

▲

smarf 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

can you quote where they claimed the above was your statement?

	▲	IG_Semmelweiss 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are correct, but I can't change my comment now. I stand corrected