|
| ▲ | saghm an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| To be fair, most of those companies had those phases with administrations that were a lot less petty than the current one. |
|
| ▲ | Danox 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can. Nothing good comes with associating with them. Have a legal department trained to be the buffer between you and the government any contact any questions goes through them and since you’re paying them a ton of money, they are the only people the politicians should get to know, oh, and again and again do not volunteer anything. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can this is the antithesis of a tech company whether it is VC funded or not, but especially if it is. you don't attract new users by laying low. you don't attract investors by laying low. laying low isn't even in a tech company's vocab. | | |
| ▲ | andrewchambers 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think they meant keep a low profile from the government, not customers. Anthropic is doing the opposite by loudly asking for regulation. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the company is "hot" attracting a lot of users, then of course the gov't is going to come knocking too. They're going to want access to all of that user data even if it's not a service they could use directly. Sure, you don't have to go courting government contracts, but it's not like government employees are not going to see the same PR civilian users see. |
|
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should’ve kept their distance from the government as long as they could don’t volunteer to be helpful. Don’t volunteer to go meet with politicians keep as low profile as you can for as long as you can. Nothing good comes with associating with them. That was always Microsoft's modus operandi, and it almost cost them their company. You can ignore politicians, but politicians won't ignore you. |
|
|
| ▲ | khalic 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're talking like it's business as usual. None of these companies had anything similar to this retaliation |
| |
| ▲ | tristanj 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Microsoft had it worse. Bill Gates was openly hostile and dismissive of the US government during Microsoft's anti-trust investigation, he believed anti-trust law was illegitimate and shouldn't apply to tech companies. He did not take the investigation seriously and repeatedly argued with investigators in his court deposition. In response, Microsoft got raked over the coals by the government, the company was almost broken up, and Gates stepped down as CEO after the debacle. Now Microsoft stopped fighting the government, and is one of the US government's biggest partners, with massive DoD Azure cloud contracts. | | |
| ▲ | TalkingCodeMonk an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Microsoft had it worse because Gates was a megalomaniac who was so self-absorbed he didn't understand he was supposed to bribe via "donations". Tech companies all learned the same as other sectors; it's more profitable to have lobbyists greasing the wheels of corrupt politicians from the get go, and "donate" to their success for a lifetime of consultation and quid pro quo. This is also why all virtues signaled by corporations should be treated as lies unless they are legally bindable, and there are actual consequences for false and misleading advertising, fraud, etc other than a rounding error and cost of doing business. It's only been several years since all AI companies signaled virtues about morality and ethics by not working with the military. Now they all do. | | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a difference between ignoring the government while you're blatantly breaking the law and they're suing you for it, and not proactively reaching out to the government while they're breaking the law. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | wahnfrieden 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are you sure it’s about principles and not primarily the bribery involved? OAI leadership has bribed the administration. It may be due to principles and the principled stand Anthropic has taken has caused trouble, but they have also not delivered a bribery as far as we can see. When there is a protection money racket in play, it’s hard for me to take other factors as seriously. This is gangster economics not a philosopher’s circle. Here’s another take on this with more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48593212 |
|
| ▲ | tehjoker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The fighting these companies had with the government was very nominal. https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ (2014) |
|
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nah, with Google etc it was more realizing their own interests aligned with the interests of the new administration. By which I mean, they are both interested in being filthy rich, making hay while the sun shines, and stopping centrist forces from adding wealth taxes or anti-monopoly regulations. Biden and Harris were getting too uppity about such things for their tastes. Have you seen who Sergey Brin is budding around with these days, and what he -- a formerly very "left liberal" person involved in very vocal anti-Trump protestations inside and outside of Google -- is saying these days? Third richest dude in the world is terrified of wealth taxes being put in place by his former friends, and dating a MAGA "gut-health" influencer. A gentleman's agreement was brokered between SV and the GOP involving some mutual backscratching. Which Dario and crew aren't a part of. Yet. |
|
| ▲ | mentalgear 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Indeed, the diff: These previous big tech companies where fighting their neo-liberal agenda against a liberal government, now there's an autocratic fascist one fighting a liberal company. |
|
| ▲ | anonym29 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >(especially Microsoft) Are you joking? When was this? Remember, Microsoft was the very first partner to deliver working warrantless surveillance capabilities (against their customers) to the NSA as part of the unconstitutional PRISM program, and this was back in 2007, nearly two decades ago. |
| |
| ▲ | fragmede an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh man, 2007? Wait, wait don't tell me, when was windows 95 a big deal? | |
| ▲ | busterarm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And that's over 30 years since the company was founded and a full decade after the US Gov sued Microsoft on antitrust grounds going into the process with every intent on breaking up the company... Also saying they were the first is laughable. Warrantless telephone surveillance by law enforcement began all the way back in 1895...but really in the way that you would recognize today all the way back in 1994. |
|
