| ▲ | Analemma_ 8 hours ago |
| You seem really unaware of the timeline of this issue and what has actually happened, I think you should update your info before posting so confidently wrongly. The contract, including Anthropic's redlines, was signed more than a year ago and has been humming along with no objections from anybody. Hegseth abruptly got a bug up his ass about it last week, and demanded Anthropic sign a revised version under threat of punishment. Anthropic is simply saying "no, we will not be forced into signing a new version, you can either keep going with the original terms we all agreed to, or stop using us". The Pentagon can simply stop using Anthropic if they don't like the terms anymore (which, again, are the terms Pentagon agreed to in the first place). But what the DoW wants is to strong-arm Anthropic, using the DPA, into new terms because they abruptly changed their mind. That's not "negotiation" in any sense, that's Mafia behavior. |
|
| ▲ | tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-] |
| How you characterize the behavior, Mafia or not, is of course your opinion, and I am sure if you are a voter/stakeholder you'd consider that in your political activity, but I'd appreciate if you clarify what you mean but your story and timeline, so I ask again, are you suggesting the US government has breached the contract they already signed? |
| |
| ▲ | Analemma_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know why you keep bringing up breach of contract, it is not relevant to this discussion at all. No, the government did not breach the contract AFAIK, they just decided they didn't like it anymore, and instead of either withdrawing or entering into a negotiation about it, they decided to use threats to try and get their terms at metaphorical gunpoint. The actual terms of the contract aren't even relevant, this is purely a matter of tort law and whether you can bully someone into a new contact because you woke up one day and decided you didn't like the one you agreed to. | | |
| ▲ | tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because you implied it here: > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. They want to "forcibly amend" is either within their rights per original contract, or not. One is fair game, the other is not. | | |
| ▲ | wasabi991011 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I did not read that as implying breach of contract, and AI don't understand your explanation. Isn't agreeing to amend a contract always within their rights? |
|
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The comment you replied to is pretty clear: Yes, the US government seeks to void the contract they already signed. That said, many government contracts include some variant of "we can cancel at any time for any reason". | | |
| ▲ | Analemma_ 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's actually even worse than that: Anthropic already agrees that the Pentagon can walk away from the contract and stop using Claude if they want to, there's no dispute there. What the Pentagon wants is to force Anthropic into a new set of terms which cannot be refused. | | |
|
|
