you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Personally, I think this is just another chapter in the conflict the DOJ is having against Anthropic because they refused to let their tools be used for war.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    They did allow them to be used for war. Anthropic's only red lines were autonomous weapons (technically still a ways off) and domestic surveillance (it was this one where a 'No' would have been relevant right now).

    It should really alarm everyone that the US gov is using things like the first ever declaration of an American company as a supply chain risk or calling "fix this insecure code" something requiring export control and IDs to verify citizenship of usage as a way to warn other companies to comply with their illegal usage requests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    You're mostly right but I have a small correction (after getting the "red lines" burned into my retinas):

    • Anthropic only drew the line at fully autonomous weapons - aka the ones where the launch order would be their responsibility. Semi-autonomous ones (e.g. with a soldier hitting the "go" button at the end) were still a-ok
    • And they only refused mass domestic surveillance, i.e. targeted surveillance of locals (and of course mass surveillance of people abroad) was still on the table
  • source
  • parent