[throw0101c]

> Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

Well:

"""

Imagine that you created an LLC, and that you are the sole owner and employee.

One day your LLC receives a letter from the government that says, "here is a contract to go mine heavy rare earth elements in Alaska." You don't want to do that, so you reply, "no thanks!"

There is no retaliation. Everything is fine. You declined the terms of a contract. You live in a civilized capitalist republic. We figured this stuff out centuries ago, and today we have bigger fish to fry.

"""

* https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638

[grosswait]

This is a terrible analogy. Imagine you’re an LLC that signed a contract to mine minerals, but your terms state you’d only mine in areas you felt safe. OSHA says it’s safe but you disagree, because….. any number of reason unknowable to an outsider. Maybe you just don’t like this OSHA leadership. That is more like what is happening.

Signing a contract with Anthropic assuming they wouldn’t rug pull over their own moral soapbox was mistake number one.

I love anthropic products and heavily use them daily, but they need to get off their high horse. They complain they’re being robbed by Chinese labs - robbed of what they stole from copyright holders. Anthropic doesn’t have the moral high ground they try to claim.

[otterley]

The (hypothetical) contract is clear, though. The condition is stated in objective terms: “in areas you felt safe.” If the Government agrees to this, then they should be bound just like any private counterparty would. If the Government didn’t agree to this, they should have negotiated that term out in favor of their preferred terms.

[WD-42]

Is it a rug pull? Where in the terms of service does anthropic say their models can be used for autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance?