More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.

▲

fwipsy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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."

▲

toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

latexr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Respond accordingly.

“Four key words (…) The only phrase that can genuinely make a weak bully go away, and that is: Fuck You, Make Me.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohPToBog_-g&t=1619s

▲

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Paper tigers

▲

gclawes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The government should be entitled to any lawful use of a product they purchase, not uses dictated solely by the provider. It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is, it's not up to these companies to dictate.

▲

mediaman an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The product is a service, and they agreed to a contract. Now they don't like the contract.

Is your view that contracts with the government should be meaningless? That the government should be able to unilaterally, and without recourse, change any contract they previously agreed to for any reason, and the vendor should be forced at gunpoint to comply?

If you do believe this, then what do you believe the second order effects will be when contracts with the government have no meaning? How will vendors to the government respond? Will this ultimately help or hinder the American government's efficacy?

	▲	danorama 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Seriously. Hegseth trying to play “I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further” just shows this gang’s total lack of comprehension of second-order effects.

▲

isodev an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is

No, it’s up to the government to create policy and legislation that outlines what is lawful or not and install mechanisms to monitor and regulate usage.

The fact that an arm of the government wants to go YOLO mode is merely a symptom of the deeper problem that this government is currently not effectual.

▲

grosswait an hour ago | parent [-]

Do you have any insight that what they want to do is YOLO, as opposed something your sure you’ll disagree with?

	▲	isodev an hour ago \| parent [-]
		YOLO here refers to unsafe usage of LLMs. Your government is supposed to make legislation that protects all of its citizens, it’s not “what you agree with” game.

▲

mech422 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not like limiting uses of products is anything new

▲

rpdillon an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not really. Services are provided on terms acceptable to both parties. This isn't about what's legal, it's about the terms of the service agreement.

▲

toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Providers are free who they choose to do business with, or not do business with. Are you arguing that the government should be able to compel a provider to allow their use when it’s well documented the government does not respect nor adhere to the rule of law? I think you misunderstand commerce and contract law.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Strange take

▲

bdangubic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Amazing to read this. Hoping you are not an American… Reading this thread is like comrade after comrade!