undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeorgefrowny27d ago0 comments

In none of their statements do they say they won't do the things:

> we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.

That's very specifically worded to not say "under no circumstances will we do this".

> Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now

Is not saying they won't eventually be included.

They've left themselves a backtrack, and with the care there this statement has been crafted, that's surely deliberate.

0 comments

reactordev27d ago

This. This is a public misdirection. They already signed a new deal. It may be to their disliking but nothing in the statement prevents them from moving forward.

uncletammy27d ago

That is speculation. You might be correct but this statement could simply be a strong signal to the administration to back down. A hail Mary.

abustamam26d ago

Isn't that what we're all doing in this thread? We could certainly take the document at face value but as a parent commenter said, almost every company starts off with "don't be evil" then goes and does evil things.

Is anthropic different? Maybe. But personally I don't see any indication to give them the benefit of the doubt.

hdb227d ago

> They've left themselves a backtrack, and with the care there this statement has been crafted, that's surely deliberate.

What's worse, someone in their PR department will read this thread and be disappointed that the spin didn't work.

brookst27d ago

I mean that’s just adulthood.

There are outcomes where the US government seizes the company. Not super likely, not impossible.

It would be naive to write a statement that a future event will never happen, under any circumstances. People who make that mistake get lambasted for hypocrisy when unforeseen circumstances arise.

I see recognition that making absolute statements about the future is best left to zealots and prophets. Which to me speaks of maturity, not duplicity.

zhengyi1327d ago

> There are outcomes where the US government seizes the company. Not super likely, not impossible.

Are there historical examples in the US specifically where we've nationalized a business?

Because we've certainly invaded countries and assassinated leaders over exactly the same.

ETA: I could have answered my own question with two minutes of research. Yes, we have: https://thenextsystem.org/history-of-nationalization-in-the-...

darkwater27d ago

This. I don't get why you are getting downvoted. The statement literally says:

  Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now:

Last word is very important: "now".

ascorbic27d ago

I'm not saying whether or not they're planning to back down, but this sentence doesn't imply that. The "now" is clearly meant to be in reference to the fact they've not in the past.

ToucanLoucan27d ago

Being a tech forum centered around VC funding means we have a TON of tech bros (derogatory) here, who believe in nothing beyond getting their own piles of money for doing literally anything they can be paid to do. If you offered these guys $20 to murder a grandmother they'd ask if they have to cover the cost of the murder weapon or if that's provided.

I get it to a degree, people gotta eat, and especially right now the market is awful and, not to mention, most hyperscaler businesses have been psychologically obliterating people for a decade or more at this point. Why not graduate to doing it with weapons of war too? But, personally, I sleep better at night knowing nothing I've made is helping guide missiles into school busses but that's just me.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse