Thread

1. ctippett · 1790355495 · focus · HN ↗

   Admittedly I still need to do some reading on the current ruling, but how this isn't seen as an open and shut case of vindictive prosecution (if that's even a thing for this branch of law?) is astounding. The administration couldn't have made it more obvious there was no merit to their designation of Anthropic.

   1. 1234letshaveatw · 1790355864 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. hardbass · 1790355933 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes, anyone and everyone should have a right to refuse contracts with the government. Is that difficult to understand? If you find it difficult to understand then perhaps democracy and capitalism isn't for you.

         1. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790356641 · focus · HN ↗

            Maybe, but only in a very idealistic, unrealistic, sense.

            Could you imagine a hypothetical where we're at war and a private company has a potentially war-ending tech (nuclear weapon say) that they refuse to sell to the government?

            1. hardbass · 1790358169 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes I can, and I'd lose faith in the government and loyalty and willpower to fight if that company refused and the government forcibly usurped it.

               1. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790359712 · focus · HN ↗

                  What if the private company had a vaccine to prevent a pandemic?

                  The job of a government is to look after the interests of the people who elected it... Is there no point that you think the rights/needs of the many should outweigh the ideological rights of the individual?

                  1. hardbass · 1790360031 · focus · HN ↗

                     If the individual doesn't have rights, then the many don't have either for many is composed of individuals. And yes, I will have the same opinion on that private company. But morally you can see the difference between a company refusing to help in making unaided killbots vs a company releasing a vaccine?

                     1. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790362204 · focus · HN ↗

                        Sure - I agree with Anthropic's position here, but at the same time it makes sense that the military doesn't want to use them, and there are certainly situations where the government needs to be given the powers to do what they are elected to do, but hopefully limited to extraordinary justified situations.

                        1. hardbass · 1790362392 · focus · HN ↗

                           And with trumps government, I have little faith if it will be a controlled careful and limited decision.
            2. 1234letshaveatw · 1790360023 · focus · HN ↗

               It's absurd. Imagine Henry Ford blocking support for the US Army in the 40s

               1. hardbass · 1790360092 · focus · HN ↗

                  Henry Ford should have the full right to do so.

                  1. damontal · 1790372366 · focus · HN ↗

                     So it’s involved in wars.

                     1. hardbass · 1790374798 · focus · HN ↗

                        Show me where war was declared? If its not war then why are special war related concepts are being brought up?

                        1. damontal · 1790375870 · focus · HN ↗

                           So it’s only war if it’s declared war? I guess this is peace then.

                           1. hardbass · 1790377384 · focus · HN ↗

                              I am not the one saying that.
            3. fragmede · 1790361111 · focus · HN ↗

               Yeah, if they think the government is going to be irresponsible with it, and their weaponized smallpox is liable to cause a global pandemic that will also kill many of their countrymen, it seems entirely reasonable for the company not to sell it, or be forced to sell it either.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.