Thread

1. petcat · 1790353704 · focus · HN ↗

   I still don't fully understand what this was about. It sounds like the DoD said they wanted unrestricted access to Anthropic's models, Anthropic refused, so the Pentagon declared that they wouldn't use them at all.

   Isn't this basically what Anthropic wanted?

   1. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790354633 · focus · HN ↗

      Evidentially not - Anthropic want to do business with the US military, but on their own terms, telling the military what they can and cannot use it for.

      1. hardbass · 1790354916 · focus · HN ↗

         Is that a problem? Are there any special rules (genuinely curious) that allow the military to hijack the management of a private firm?

         1. shimman · 1790355372 · focus · HN ↗

            Yeah, for national security being the biggest one. Also Congress can do whatever they want if they desired. If Congress mandated that all social media companies have to become workplace democracies, that's totally fine and legal.

            We've forgotten what it means to run a society, we're allowed to change rules how we see fit whenever we want to. Only the elites exercise this power, but people have it too.

            1. hardbass · 1790355584 · focus · HN ↗

               It's not good for the people. Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights. Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone. Governments eroding them show they can do the same to you willy nilly.

               1. miyoji · 1790357143 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone.

                  In theory, maybe. In reality, this is a privilege for a very small number of rich people.

                  > Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights.

                  How absurd. Food safety regulations don't erode my rights one bit, but they do erode the rights of companies to negligently poison me. I guess I'm losing the right to start a food company that poisons people, but I'm happy to forfeit that right in exchange for not being poisoned. We could extend this list of reasonable tradeoffs in which we all exchange the right to treat people poorly for the right not be treated poorly, and we all would benefit.

                  Except the people who want to sell poisoned food, those people will be worse off. I am okay with that.

                  1. hardbass · 1790357900 · focus · HN ↗

                     Would you like if your company was deemed a supply chain risk if you were in negotiation with the government and they didn't like the terms?

                     1. miyoji · 1790438997 · focus · HN ↗

                        I'm not arguing that the government's actions towards Anthropic are fair, but you're making the argument that no government should ever be allowed to designate any company as a supply chain risk, and that's ludicrous.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.