| ▲ | themaninthedark an hour ago | |
Right but the military wants to be able to use a tool they are paying for in all cases, not just ones the manufacturer thinks they should. If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now. Edit add: What is targeting? What is surveillance? If someone in the intelligence analysis department uses AI to generate a report, then someone else uses that report for targeting did they just break the terms? Where is that line? Much easier for the Pentagon to say no. | ||
| ▲ | cptroot an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
Your "but then" is off-base. This is selling steel for the express purpose of nuclear reactors, with a contractual clause against its use in tanks, and the US government deciding that it doesn't feel like abiding by the rules in the contract. | ||
| ▲ | Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
> If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now. They sure as hell shouldn't! Selling steel for any use except ships and tanks is a little odd but it's not a risk. (I'm ignoring the "but then" because this was about future sales not previous ones.) | ||
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |
[dead] | ||