Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:

The Pentagon's demand is that Anthropic agree to "all lawful use" without the company imposing its own additional restrictions.

So they are insisting that they provide the capability? You explicitly said otherwise a few posts back.

[89th]

Turns out it's really hard to build a hammer and then say “you can't use a hammer that way” and also succeed in the hammer business.

I predict a compromise here much like starlink separate product for DoW use case.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:

@Horace said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:

The Pentagon's demand is that Anthropic agree to "all lawful use" without the company imposing its own additional restrictions.

So they are insisting that they provide the capability? You explicitly said otherwise a few posts back.

Any piece of technology can be used illegally. They are insisting that imperfect guardrails not be imposed on them. That is not the same as an insistence that they are provided with the ability to do illegal things. The AI will provide them with the ability to do illegal things with or without the imperfect guardrails. But what they have not done, is to insist on an ability to break the law. If it were possible for the AI to know what the law is exactly, which of course it isn't, as the law in question is unsettled, then in theory the pentagon would agree to the guardrails. But that thought experiment depends on an impossible universe.

[jon-nyc]

So they’re not insisting that the company provide the capability, they’re insisting that they not NOT provide the capability.

Ok glad we’ve cleared that up.

Shame on me for the tortured framing.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:

So they’re not insisting that the company provide the capability, they’re insisting that they not NOT provide it.

Ok glad we’ve cleared that up.

Shame on me for the tortured framing.

It's incoherent to say that the difference between the version of AI anthropic would like to provide, and the version the DoD wants, is that one has the ability to be used illegally and the other does not. No such categorical separation exists. The DoD is insisting on the absence of imperfect guardrails, literally. That is not the same as "insisting on the ability to break the law". If all they wanted was the ability, they could use the version Anthropic suggests. They are insisting that Anthropic not be in the loop regarding whether something is legal or illegal. They have pledged to follow law, such as it is.

[jon-nyc]

Ok, so let’s leave the legality to the future lawyers since it depends on actual use.

For tomorrow’s deadline, they’re insisting that Anthropic NOT NOT provide a certain capability. Which is different than insisting they DO provide that same capability. In fact, the latter is dishonest tribal rhetoric.

Ok, I’m learning. Don’t give up on me yet.

[Horace]

No, you're not really learning. But I'm patient. You may not have understood my previous post; feel free to read it again. The difference in versions that Anthropic wants to provide and that DoD wants them to provide, is not one of categorical "can or cannot be used for illegal surveillance". This is an important point. The DoD only wants imperfect guardrails removed.

It is simply and objectively false to think that the version Anthropic would like to provide, will perfectly prevent itself from use in "illegal" surveillance while allowing itself to be used in legal circumstances. The DoD is demanding that the imperfect guardrails not be a potential impediment to their legal uses. Explicitly that is their demand. Yes, your framing is tribal and tortured.

[89th]

Didn't we have a Claude member here once? Maybe he can weigh in. If not, @klaus is as close as we get.

[Renauda]

@89th said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:

Didn't we have a Claude member here once? Maybe he can weigh in. If not, @klaus is as close as we get.

That’s going back awhile. Yeah, I think his complete handle was Claude Balls.

I just assumed it another one of the late Larry’s numerous fun sock puppets

[jon-nyc]

Ha. I remember that now.