Are you sure about that? Every information I’ve seen suggests that the DoD has been using Anthropic’s models through Palantir.

My understanding is that Anthropic requested visibility and a say into how their models were being used for classified tasks, while the DoD wanted to expand the scope of those tasks into areas that Anthropic found objectionable. Both of those proposals were unacceptable for the other side.

▲

stingraycharles 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Wasn’t the trigger for all this what happened with Maduro earlier this year? From what I understood, Anthropic wasn’t very happy how their systems were being used by the DoW through Palentir which caused this whole feud.

▲

felipeerias 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Reportedly, Anthropic didn't know about Claude's role in capturing Maduro until they saw it on the headlines.

▲

ExoticPearTree 6 hours ago | parent [-]

And why would they have an objection to that? They sold a product to a customer. They should have no business in how that customer uses their software.

▲

felipeerias 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s a bit more complex than that, but to be fair I don’t know what they were expecting after they integrated a purpose-built model with Palantir to be deployed in high-security networks to carry out classified tasks.

▲

mcmcmc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So firearms dealers should be fine with their customers going on mass murder sprees?

▲

ExoticPearTree 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is this a rethoric question?

	▲	kakacik an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Is your original question rhetoric? Because it ain't very... smart

▲

warkdarrior 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Licensing is a thing. See requirements that, for example, GPL3 places on customers.

▲

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

[deleted]

▲

sixothree 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd hate to break it to you, but companies do have a right to determine how their products are used. You were subject to that when you wrote that comment. Did you not notice that?

	▲	ExoticPearTree 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, I do not think they do. If a buy a car a run somebody over on purpose, the manufacturer has no right to come take my car away. Even if it were to be written in a contract.