[j2kun]

It's a waste of your effort to apply rational argument to the actions of a group that are in it for a shakedown.

[hedora]

Simple rational argument:

SCOTUS says POTUS is above the law, so POTUS has collected $4B in bribe / protection money since taking office 13 months ago. Anthropic has lots of money at the moment. Why should they be allow to keep it?

Since they didn't pay off the president (enough?), his goons are going to screw with their revenue and run a PR smear campaign.

Once you realize it only has to do with Trump's personal finances, and nothing to do with national security or the rule of law, then all the administration's actions make perfect rational sense.

Open question: How much should a congress-critter charge Trump for a favorable vote? (The check should come with a presidential pardon in the envelope, of course...)

[beej71]

> If Anthropic doesn’t want the responsibilities of being a US company

When did this suddenly become "businesses will do whatever the government says regardless of earlier contracts signed"?

[TehCorwiz]

I see it more like: I sell you a pencil and I could not care less what you write with it. You ask me to write a note for you and I will exert editorial discretion. Because unless I’m missing something we’re talking about Anthropic’s infrastructure running LLMs. If it was a physical good I could see another interpretation.

Further, what law lets the government dictate what contracts a company signs? Anthropic refused to work with them. We had a whole Supreme Court case about refusing working with customers.

[garbawarb]

Are they legally required to agree to a new contract? Which law says this?

[singleshot_]

> they’re legally required to in the US

Obviously false, not even arguable

[corpoposter]

Facilitating "mass domestic surveillance" and "fully autonomous weapons" are social responsibilities now? Insanity.

[telchior]

This makes an interesting assumption: that being told by any member of government that you're legally required to do something, means you're required to do that thing, and that they're definitely not making those things up as they go.

But that's not the case, is it? The government can say that it's legally required to give Donald Trump a gold bar every Sunday. That wouldn't even be too far off from the outlandish claims we've seen over the past year. The Trump administration is, as Chapelle would put it, a habitual line stepper.

[behole]

Boot meet tongue

[hobs]

I like how you use the phrase social responsibilities to mean doing whatever the DoD wants which includes spying on the American people and operating autonomous drones to kill people. It's like saying they have social responsibilities to enable murder for people who have been shown to be unthinking murderers justifying the most pointless murders because they think it makes "their side" winners.

[jibal]

It's bad faith to call one's position in a dispute "obvious", and that's before we even get to all the insults.

(What is obvious is the kind of response I will get, which is why I will ignore it and not comment further.)

[kalkin]

> petite bourgeoisie clutching their pearls

> mean girl slights

[mikeg8]

Lick! The! Boot!