"The law" is the contract. The Pentagon agreed to terms of service. The law is not on the Pentagon's side. The contract did not change; what changed is the Pentagon breaking the contract.

Perhaps you think the law shouldn't allow such a contract; that's a valid position. But that's not what the law currently says.

I'm saying they shouldn't write in their contract that they have some veto power of how their software is used if it's within the law of the land (ie laws written by congress)

Is that more clear?

Sure. And since they can't reach a contract they do agree on, there is no sale. They cannot be compelled to sign a contract that they do not agree to.

Agree. Anthropic shouldn't require that in their contract (it is stupid). I'm glad the government resisted as it was an insane overreach. But since Anthropic insisted there should be no contract.

> if its within the law.

The current administration has been caught flouting court orders in dozens of cases, to the point that courts are no longer even granting them the assumption that they’re operating in good faith.

I can think of a million good reasons not to give these people the tools to implement automated totalitarianism. Your proposal that they simply refuse service to the government entirely would be ideal.

Yes we obv need large corporations to exert some kind of control over our elected officials.

Our elected officials shouldn’t violate contracts. This isn’t rocket surgery.

They can have a contract that says whatever they want. My argument is this shouldn't try to push one of these contracts and the government shouldn't agree to such a contract.

Nowhere did I say elected officials should violate contracts.

The government works for the people, not the other way around. For the people, by the people and of the people.

If you don't question people in positions of power they will just do whatever they want. Democracy is sustained by action, not by acquiescence.

And with the lawlessness of this administration, I would make it a point to hold them accountable. I'm not going to let them do mass surveillance when they decide to change the law.

Are you native, or just ignoring what is going on?

I want people to question people in power. Thats kind of the point of democracy. But it's good to remember corporations aren't people :-)

It’s a service. Democracy doesn’t give the government the right to force you to perform a service.

The technology isn’t suitable for the purposes the regime wants.

They can choose to sell to government agencies or not. But selling to them and then trying to have some veto power is wrong. So it sounds like we're in a agreement.

I would like western Democratic powers to have the most advanced technology personally but you may disagree.

Basically, yes.

I've worked in government outside of the Federal level. The government has a moral and often legal incentive to do inefficient things for the simple reason that the work they do needs to be safe, controlled and deterministic.

Any US state maintains a birth registry, death registry and DMV. But firewalls exist so that live links don't exist between these and other programs. It's inefficient, but avoids many hazards and conflicts in regulatory or legal compliance. For example, income tax information is secret, and cannot be shared outside of the tax processing scenario. Police investigatory data should not be linked to your unemployment claim. Fundamentally, those are examples of why the stuff that Palantir is doing is problematic.

With military applications, it's even more fraught, and human life is in peril by design. It's important for a professional army like the US Army that strict discipline and rules of engagement are followed. Soldiers may find themselves in situations where people are shooting at them, and they are ordered to take no action.

AI is not capable of functioning in that environment.

My point is these are complex issues, and we are in a political environment where people seeking simple answers are looking at technology like AI to disconnect them from accountability. There's a nuance there, and a reason why Anthropic is willing to partner with Palantir for their work, but hesitant to powering drones that are dropping hellfire missiles on people.

That is crazy. You are suggesting that corporations should have no power over their own IP.

Are you really saying that if Anthropic sells a limited version of their product to Palantir at a certain price, the government should be able to demand access to an unlimited version of Anthropic's product for free because they are a customer of Palantir?

That would effectively mean the government gets an unlimited license to all IP of companies that do business with government suppliers... that would be terrible.

Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold weapons to the military but said "don't use them is unjustified wars as we deem fit" seems wrong as we dont want gun manufacturers setting our foreign policy. Choose not to sell them sure, but this isn't "ownership of IP". If the feds were to ask for weights and torrent it out, sure IP. But this ain't that

Guns aren’t a service, which is what Anthropic sells.

Anthropic has a contract for how their service is to be used, the government committed itself to following the contract by signing. Then it violated the contract.

Basically the government committed fraud by signing a contract that it clearly intended to violate. Then they tried to bully Anthropic into not doing anything about their breach of contract.

It’s mobster behavior. You’re saying Anthropic should just not sell services if it’s going to enforce the terms of service. You have it backwards: the government shouldn’t enter into contracts that it intends to violate.