[ExoticPearTree]

Unfortunately, every country has a law somewhere saying it can take private property at will if it is in the national interest.

It's not only the US being special in this case.

The problem is pretty simple: there is money to be made and someone will do what the Pentagon wants. Will it be worse in capabilities than Anthropic? Probably, but as long as it can be used to wage autonomous war wherever the US military decides, it will be good enough.

Anthropic can stick to their beliefs as much as they want, but it will not change the outcome, maybe just postpone it a bit.

On an unrelated note, I think the Pentagon erred when it labeled them a supply chain vulnerability, they should have used the DPA to make them do what they need. Less drama and much cheaper compared to replacing them with a whole different company.

[johnnyanmac]

>It's not only the US being special in this case.

It's the US being special in how there's zero good reasoning behind any of this. A private company made a choice and it's retaliating like a spurned date.

[ExoticPearTree]

There is plenty of good reasoning executed badly from a PR perspective.

It is (now) called the Department of War for a reason: It needs to be able to kill people very fast and cheap. Autonomous weapons platforms do that: you give them a geofenced area and let them kill everything that moves in said area. No loss of human pilots, no fatigue.

If Anthropic they had any ethics concerns they would not have signed up the Pentagon as client in the first place.

My guess is that they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.