Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border - none of them have a problem being unethical internationally (all the red lines talk is about what they don’t want to do in the us)

▲

mlyle 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally.

Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic.

(But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus).

	▲	janalsncm 11 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think the person you are replying to takes issue with the thing which you have simply asserted.
	▲	isodev an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I don’t think deploying “80% right” tools for mass surveillance (or anything that can remotely impact human life) counts as lawful in any context. Just because the US currently lacks a functioning legislative branch doesn’t magically make it OK when gaps in the law are reworded into “national security”
	▲	Jeremy1026 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance.

▲

allajfjwbwkwja 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

There's an obvious difference.

Surveillance within the border is oppressive 1984-style surveillance state behavior.

International spying is a universal tradition.