- The Pentagon seems to see this as a procurement issue, we bought a tool, don't tell us how to use it, and Anthropic seems concerned that the tool's nature is shaped by the constraints put on it, and we don't really understand this AI thing, and an unconstrained version could be a worse and more dangerous tool.
- > This whole incident, and what happens next, is all going straight into future training data. AIs will know what you are trying to do, even more so than all of the humans, and they will react accordingly. It will not be something that can be suppressed. You are not going to like the results.
Besides the fact that this is comically hyperbolic... isn't Mowshowitz wrong here? Training data and input data can be censored if the fed really wanted to, especially in the circumstances that they have the IP for Claude's foundation models.
> If you can’t do it cooperatively with Anthropic? Then find someone else.
This is way too little, way too late. The Pentagon has already offered their ultimatum, there's not any emotional appeal to make to them. The article's white-glove ethical and legal concerns are (unfortunately) not pragmatic, and it's idyllic vision of capitalism will not rescue Anthropic from the clutches of crony capitalism.
In the words of Dr. Breen, "You have chosen, or been chosen..."
- > Training data and input data can be censored if the fed really wanted to, especially in the circumstances that they have the IP for Claude's foundation models.
You can't really, if it's widely covered. Even if you filter the articles a lot of information suggesting it will leak into the training data through contextual clues.
- It's not an emotional appeal, it's a counter-ultimatum. The Pentagon cannot compel anyone to like them and will not enjoy the results of radicalizing us against them. Perhaps there's some way they could seize control over training data, I suppose, but no invocation of the Defense Production Act can stop me from seeing an alert in a DoD cloud region and deciding I don't care to answer it.
- I had trouble taking the article seriously after this
"Anthropic did not partner with the Pentagon to make money. They did it to help. They did it under a mutually agreed upon contract that Anthropic wants to honor."
The only thing Anthropic cares about is money. There is no other motivation for anything it does, military or otherwise.
- Seems like you and the author are doing the same thing: speaking in absolutes. It's possible for "Anthropic" (or the summed vector of all the human decision makers within it) to have contracted with the military because it wants to make money AND it wants to help.
The questions are: "Help with what, precisely?" and "How much money versus how much value (/principles) compromise?"
