The nutter is relentless.
Take that, Trump
- Thread starter Justin Passing
- Start date
You are like a child who deliberately gainsays whatever an adult says.
The point is that they weren't given the chance to walk away WITHOUT A TERRIBLE AND VINDICTIVE PENALTY WHICH WILL PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,897
- Reaction score
- 6,310
- Country
It wont put them out of business. They have huge backing - most of the hyperscalers have skin in the game. What there has been is real concern over leadership. That is valid. Arrogance has no place in a negotiation.
Anthropic courted the Pentagon. Here's why it walked away
For AI lab Anthropic, losing a Pentagon contract has coincided with a spectacular surge in popularity. In the wake of a public clash with the U.S. government, the company's chatbot Claude has topped the Apple App Store and its annualized revenue pace has shot up to $19 billion, from $14 billion...
www.reuters.com
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,897
- Reaction score
- 6,310
- Country
the pair of you are clueless.... again.
You don't seem to have any principles or moral framework of any sort.
Do you believe that Trump should be able to try to destroy a private company simply for not wanting to enter into a contract with him. What sort of penalty do you believe is appropriate for the government to impose on a company which does not want to enter into a contract with them.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,897
- Reaction score
- 6,310
- Country
As I've said already, it's not for CEO's to hold governments to account.
Don't like the terms - you can terminate the contract or not chase the business in the first place. Amodei will be back in the next few weeks to quietly close the deal. His investors will require it.
Except that it’s the opposite of what’s happened.
Anthropics’ stance and red lines were clear from the outset. Now they are being punished by a man-baby.
The actions of Trump and his MAGA minions are unprecedented in terms of their retribution towards a US company.
Revolting stain.
That's a massive swerve. But not unexpected. You have a certain reputation on here. The question I asked is whether you believe a company should be penalised for refusing to enter into a contract with the government. You clearly have no moral principles, but the question now is do you have any free market principles,
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,897
- Reaction score
- 6,310
- Country
I
But it depends what you mean by penalised.
Plenty of corporations upset governments and get less favourable treatment i.e. Blocked. The unusual thing here is its all been public, whereas normally it happens behind closed doors. Do I think the supply chain risk will be withdrawn, yes and I don't see any long term damage for Anthropic. I do see risk for the CEO however, as he has shown very poor judgement by retaliating. He could simply have responded with "we do not discuss the terms of our confidential contracts in public and look forward to working a resolution with our valued customer blah blah".
In the case of Anthropic. there is an existing License agreement and both parties entered negotiations to amend it. The governments position is it allowed all lawful usage. Since nobody here has seen the terms of their licensing agreement, we cannot say who is right. All we can say is that Anthropic's position is not common ground.
No.
But it depends what you mean by penalised.
Plenty of corporations upset governments and get less favourable treatment i.e. Blocked. The unusual thing here is its all been public, whereas normally it happens behind closed doors. Do I think the supply chain risk will be withdrawn, yes and I don't see any long term damage for Anthropic. I do see risk for the CEO however, as he has shown very poor judgement by retaliating. He could simply have responded with "we do not discuss the terms of our confidential contracts in public and look forward to working a resolution with our valued customer blah blah".
In the case of Anthropic. there is an existing License agreement and both parties entered negotiations to amend it. The governments position is it allowed all lawful usage. Since nobody here has seen the terms of their licensing agreement, we cannot say who is right. All we can say is that Anthropic's position is not common ground.
Stop with the infantile claims that you need to see the contract. Every report is consistent about what has happened. Anyway, the man who drew up the original contract was interviewed yesterday in NYTimes. He confirmed that it is Trump who is wanting to change the contract terms unilaterally. And he called Trump's threats 'fascism'. The guy in question is a right wing free market libertarian, and unlike you he does seem to have some principles.
Utter bollax (last paragraph).
As usual he’s digressed into falsehood and fantasy and completely forgotten about contractual obligations.
I’m convinced he’s a nutter.
MBK delves into his little bag of tricks and emerges with an answer to a question I didn't ask, a straw man and some false equivalency.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,897
- Reaction score
- 6,310
- Country
you don't have a clue and why would you.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,897
- Reaction score
- 6,310
- Country
your hatred of trump has prevented you from being objective. You think Anthropic is being forced to do things it doesn't want..
So they are happy to part ways and will assist in the transition, like a responsible supplier (or rather one that likely has a commercial obligation to do so, as is standard).
As I said before, it doesn't matter who is asking to make the changes. The position seems reasonable.
When you go into the details this seems more about the "physical" safeguards in the product, than the terms of the License.