No. It really only binds the corporation, but it does hold the executives/directors personally responsible for compliance so they’d be under a lot of pressure to figure out how to fix enough leaks in the ship to keep it afloat. Any individual director/executive could quit with little issue, but if they all did in a way that compromised the corporations ability to function, the courts could potentially utilize injunctions/fines/jail time to compel compliance from corporate leaders.

Also there’s probably a way to abuse the Taft-Hawley act beyond current recognition to force the employees to stay by designating any en-masse quitting to be a “strike / walk off / collective action”. The consequences to the individuals for this is unclear - the act really focuses on punishing the union rather than the employees. It would take some very creative maneuvering to do anything beyond denying unemployment benefits and telling the other big AI companies (Google / ChatGPT / xAI) to blacklist them. And probably using any semi-relevant three letter agency to make them regret their choice and deliver a chilling effect to anyone else thinking of leaving (FBI, DHS, IRS, SEC all come to mind).

If the administration could figure out how to nationalize the company (like replace the leadership with ideologically-aligned directors who sell it to the government) then any now-federal-employees declared to be quitting as part of a collective action could be fined $1,000 per day or incarcerated for up to one year.

It’s worth noting that this thesis would get an F grade at any accredited law school. Forcing people to work is a violation of the 13th amendment. But interpretations of the constitution and federal law are very dynamic these days so who knows.

The real issue is if Trump and Hegseth will create fake wars to nationalize a private corporation, they’ll definitely declare wars to extend the presidency.

It's whatever what the people who have the power want to call it. What is written on a piece of paper is irrelevant if it is not acted upon.

If the rename gets struck down then they don't have the power. If it doesn't they have the power.

There are many dictatorships that built their power in the face of people claiming that they can't do what they planned because it was illegal.

Until they did it anyway.

They've already spent millions on the name change. It's also the original name of the department. IMO it's a more honest name

It definitely has the aroma of either Bannon or Miller or both.

> It’s a flippant move by Hegseth.

Care to convert this into a prediction?: are you predicting Hegseth will back down?

> I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this.

I don't see why this sentence matters much. Help me understand why this matters to you? Perhaps you mean that you doubt anyone under Hegseth (the SecDef/SecWar, who runs the Pentagon) will cooperate?

One can view Hegseth as unqualified, even a walking publicity stunt while also taking his power seriously.

I see this a lot on the immigration topic. They’re simultaneously too rich and taking over everything, but also low paid slave labor displacing white Christians everywhere.

Where is my eyeroll emoji. Contradictory statements are a hallmark of politics. Please stop over using the term fascism. It’s already close to losing all meaning.

Anthropic has been pushing for commonsense AI regulation. Our current administration has refused to regulate AI and attempted to prevent state regulation.

"The government doesn't have control of this technology" is an odd way to think about "the government can't force a company to apply this technology dangerously."

Note that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.

No, in your example, if the dodgy Chinese company is a supply chain risk due to sabotage, why would they invoke an act to force production of the bolts from the same company for use for national defense preparedness, which would be clearly a national security risk?

It's easy to resolve an alleged contradiction by just ignoring one half of it lol

Try introducing DPA invocation into your analogy and let's see where it goes!

"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.

The analogy doesn't work here ... In your scenario they are ok with using the bolt as long as the Chinese company promises to remove deliberate defects - which is of course absurd ... AND contradictory.

Because technology companies know more about their product's capabilities and limitations than a former Fox News host? And because they know there's a risk of mass civilian casualties if you put an LLM in control of the world's most expensive military equipment?

Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.

Same reason they cant quarter troops in your house: the law

Because the government is here to serve us. Not the other way around.

There are a couple of notable Supreme Court cases in this area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

> Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

Well:

"""

Imagine that you created an LLC, and that you are the sole owner and employee.

One day your LLC receives a letter from the government that says, "here is a contract to go mine heavy rare earth elements in Alaska." You don't want to do that, so you reply, "no thanks!"

There is no retaliation. Everything is fine. You declined the terms of a contract. You live in a civilized capitalist republic. We figured this stuff out centuries ago, and today we have bigger fish to fry.

"""

* https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638

You from China? :)

What the fuck is wrong with you.

Why do you hate free markets?