It looks like Trump may be backing down from his hissy fit after seeing how useful Anthropic has proved in Iran. Maybe he has decided that he doesn't need indiscriminate mass surveillance of US citizens after all.
Take that, Trump
- Thread starter Justin Passing
- Start date
It looks like Trump may be backing down from his hissy fit after seeing how useful Anthropic has proved in Iran. Maybe he has decided that he doesn't need indiscriminate mass surveillance of US citizens after all.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,907
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Country
That's not how it reads
Anthropic and the Pentagon are back at the negotiating table, FT reports
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is reportedly back at the negotiating table with the U.S. Department of Defense after the breakdown of talks on Friday.
www.cnbc.com
That's not how it reads
It reads exactly like that.
You seem to have missed that, over the weekend, OpenAI have backed down and are now trying to reinsert the same protections as Anthropic. Basically, they are massively worried about further haemorrhaging of their best staff to Anthropic.
OpenAI's Altman admits defense deal 'looked opportunistic and sloppy' amid backlash
Sam Altman says that OpenAI "shouldn't have rushed" its deal with the Defense Department and was making "some additions."
www.cnbc.com
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,907
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Country
I haven't missed anything. OpenAI did the deal. Now Anthropic will do the deal. US will have no single point of failure and neither will have leverage. Unless of course they club together to control supply. In which case they may find themselves in jail.It reads exactly like that.
You seem to have missed that, over the weekend, OpenAI have backed down and are now trying to reinsert the same protections as Anthropic. Basically, they are massively worried about further haemorrhaging of their best staff to Anthropic.
OpenAI's Altman admits defense deal 'looked opportunistic and sloppy' amid backlash
Sam Altman says that OpenAI "shouldn't have rushed" its deal with the Defense Department and was making "some additions."
What you have missed is that OpenAI are desperately scrabbling to undo the agreement they made with Trump on Friday. They have come under intense pressure from their employees and other major AI firms.
The controlling supply point is just another straw man.
The big picture is that, in a free market democracy, a government should not try to destroy private companies who refuse to enter into agreements with them. But as a Trump fan boy, you seem whole heartedly behind the ongoing slide into autocracy.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,907
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Country
Is this your logical unbiased analysis doing the heavy lifting again.
Have you actually done any software/SaaS agreements in your professional career - other than clicking "Accept"?
Do you think the vendor can unilaterally materially restrict the contract after the fact?
One news articles says he wants to change it, another says he knows he can't.
It's just re-posturing for PR
Is this your logical unbiased analysis doing the heavy lifting again.
Have you actually done any software/SaaS agreements in your professional career - other than clicking "Accept"?
Do you think the vendor can unilaterally materially restrict the contract after the fact?
One news articles says he wants to change it, another says he knows he can't.
It's just re-posturing for PR
Both articles say the same i.e. Altman is desperately trying to undo the agreement he made on Friday.
So, a simple question for you. Do you believe that a private company who doesn't agree to a government's terms should be free to walk away from negotiations without consequence.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,907
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Country
he's making noise, for sure
I will go with mostly and I'll explain why its not a 100% yes*.. But first let's explore what actually happens:
The Software/SaaS businesses are like drug dealers. You sell it cheap, get a foot in the door and once the customer is hooked, you leverage your power - Land and expand. The big players have been doing it for years. Its called lock in. They know the cost of rip out, is so great you are forced to pay more, under their terms etc.
In this case a company sold a subscription/License to the US government for its product. The government went about using it for its benefit. Whether it wanted a change or the supplier wanted a change is still disputed, but lets assume it was the government... The supplier is is free* to refuse the changes, or even propose new terms when the subscription is up (STC etc blah blah).
The government can't get what it wants. It is free to choose another supplier and flag the supplier as not suitable. We do the same in the UK - Procurement Act etc.
Ignore all the public protesting and shouting.. this is exactly what has happened.
*Now lets look at the "free market" aspect:
- you chose to do business under certain laws of your host country. In this case the US, which has imposed significant export controls on technology that it deems a security risk. From advanced encryption to weaponised AI - They have the right to restrict what you do with your tech. It's been that way for a long time.
You seem to be conflating quite a bit.
What do you mean by 'flag the supplier as not suitable'. What does that mean in practice. Give some examples.
This is nothing to do with export controls or the Patriot Act or anything else. That is pure conflation. This is about Trump using one of his most extreme powers to destroy a private company because they won't agree to the contractual changes he demands. Pure autocracy. You are so in the hole for Trump that you don't even seem to realise it.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,907
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Country
G-Cloud - government dictates terms of supply. If you don't want to, or are no longer able to, you get suspended or delisted. If you aren't in the catalog, expect not to win much government business.
This is pure opinion.
That is completely different to what Trump is doing. He is using a power reserved for foreign enemies to blackmail a domestic company into agreeing a contract with the government. Something you either can't seem to understand or you actually agree with. Which sounds very strange coming from somebody who purports to believe in democracy and free markets.
This sums it up very well:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,907
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Country
He isn't preventing them from doing business, he's simply saying not with us.
Same as CCS, MoD, DfT etc. our terms or - not interested.
A letter from some democrats perhaps?
You are either being purposely ridiculous or you don't understand what's actually going on. It is difficult to know with you sometimes when you have dug yourself into a hole.
Publicly designating a company as a threat to national security is very different to just not doing business with them. It essentially puts them out of business. And to use such a designation to blackmail them into signing a contract goes against all free market and democratic principles. But for some reason you seem to be fine with that.
No, not at all.
But that deflection aside, is there anything in what they wrote that you dispute.