[cmrdporcupine]

I'm glad to see this as the top comment. I was, until recently, a loyal Anthropic customer. No more. Because the way non-Americans are spoken of by a company that serves an international market (and this isn't the first instance):

"Mass domestic surveillance. We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass _domestic_ surveillance is incompatible with democratic values."

Second class citizens. Americans have rights, you don't. "Democratic values" applies only to the United States. We'll take your money and then spy on you and it's ok because we headquartered ourselves and our bank accounts in the United States.

Very questionable. American exceptionalism that tries to define "democracy" as the thing that happens within its own borders, seemingly only. Twice as tone-deaf after what we've seen from certain prominent US citizens over the last year. Subscription cancelled after I got a whiff of this a month ago.

(Not to mention the definition of "lawful foreign intelligence" has often, and especially now, been quite ethically questionable from the United States.)

EDIT: don't just downvote me. Explain why you think using their product for surveillance of non-Americans is ethical. Justify your position.

[felineflock]

That reasoning sounds confusing: are you actually in favor of US gov's surveillance on Americans?

If not, then why are you punishing that company for refusing to deal with the US gov?

Or is it just because they worded their opposition in a certain way that you dislike?

[cmrdporcupine]

It's not confused. Are you?

I object, as a non-American paying Anthropic customer, to being surveilled and then having it justified in a press release?

[sfink]

My guess is that they can't object to foreign intelligence, and would lose negotiating ground if they even tried.

Optimistically, they can still refuse to do work that would aid in foreign intelligence gathering, by arguing that it would also be beneficial for domestic mass surveillance.

I'll admit that the phrase "We support...foreign intelligence and counterintelligence" is awful as hell, and it's possible that my apologist claims are BS. But Anthropic has very little leverage here (despite having a signed contract and so legally fully in the right), so I could see why they're desperate to stick to only the most solid objections available.

[cmrdporcupine]

It's the addition of the we support phrase in particular, and the attempt to tie that in a "democratic values" clause that is objectionable.

Not to most US citizens, I'm sure. But there's millions of non-Americans who have given them their hard earned cash. It's not a good look, and it did not need to be phrased that way as it substantially undermines the impact of their point.