That people in government speak like this is utterly absurd. The quote from Donald Trump's follow up tweet on t'social is considerably worse.
This was all due to Antropic not wanting to take on a military contract, right? Or is it suggested its more to do with Mythos, but why would it be, if they never released it.
the people in the current trump admin genuinely believe their own lies
The substance: traditionally, defense contracts don’t have clauses in them limiting what the military can do with the acquired technology. If Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumann sell a missile system to the Pentagon, they don’t try to impose contractual limits on who the Pentagon can fire the missiles at. Now, for some types of contracts - e.g. contracts to provide personnel - the Pentagon is used to contractual terms limiting uses - but not for hardware or software used in weapons systems / military planning / etc.
Along comes Anthropic, who argue AI is a fundamentally different technology, to which the old rules shouldn’t apply - they want contractual terms prohibiting certain uses (autonomous weapon systems without human in loop; domestic mass surveillance). The Biden admin buys the argument and agrees to those novel contractual terms. The Trump admin takes over and objects to them, demands they be renegotiated. I think it was primarily a matter of principle and power-“software vendors don’t get to tell us what we can and can’t do”-rather than some immediate plan to do things the contract prohibits.
OpenAI negotiated a contract which replicated those terms-but with the proviso that the terms only apply insofar as they reiterate existing legal limits. Anthropic was objecting to that as a meaningless fudge-“we promise not to do X if X is illegal” is very weak, especially when contracting with the government-Congress could change the law tomorrow, or the government’s lawyers could change their interpretation of it, or an appellate court decision could impose a new understanding of it.
And then it becomes legal. It’s not an empty argument, it simply means “someone higher than you took an initiative”.
They’re arguing it’s a service. I think Aramark could refuse to contract to provide employees to the U.S. military for a campaign on Chicago.
But contracts for personnel generally don’t contain restrictions on use beyond that. If the clerical assistant for DC is asked to provide clerical help to a military planning team who are planning an assault on Chicago, they (and their employer) don’t have legal grounds to refuse. If you are contracted to provide clerical assistance to military planners, you can’t legally say “Baghdad is fine, but Chicago is a no”. Saying that is a breach of contract-unless the courts rule that planning the assault was itself illegal, and I doubt current SCOTUS majority would
Honestly, Anthropic's stance feels like an oligarch stance. We have better morals than the American people, we will decide what weapons systems the military will use or not use.
It's perfectly understandable if they don't want to sell weapons to the government. That is a noble thing. But Anthropic wanted that DoW money and wanted to determine what is moral vs. not
It's not like any legally questionable kidnappings or bombing campaigns were being planned at the time, right?
Anthropic’s terms weren’t “don’t do anything illegal” they were “here are two highly specific things which you aren’t allowed to, whether they are legal or not”
