Comments:
Posted by Aedmar Skýjárn. @AedmarSkyjarn
I disagree with you letting this weirdo shtetl ghoul CEO off of the hook on this. It’s related to national security. China, Russia, other questionable or bad actors are all using AI and they have the ability to impose whatever on any of the companies in their countries to get access to whatever they need. The United States government shouldn’t be hamstrung in this existential AI race, because some ethnically “other” CEO (Dario) doesn’t believe he has to follow the law.
The government already has these sorts of actions in their purview. If you want to engage in commerce in the United States, you are subject, as a company, to whatever rules the state imposes. Typically, the purview is under congress but there are certain legal tools that the executive branch can employ to skirt congress relative to national security.
Instances where this has happened previously, as you were incorrect in your video by stating that this hasn’t happened before:
PRISM (2013)
Apple vs. FBI (2016)
Lavabit (2013)
AT&T Room 641A (2003–2006)
RSA Security backdoor (~2004)
The Legal Framework is usually associated with these Acts:
The Defense Production Act (DPA)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
USA PATRIOT Act (2001)
And… according to the following, we’ll never know how many times this has happened in the past due to enforceable gag orders – which the executive branch can impose on Dario/Anthropic at any time:
National Security Letters: The FBI can issue NSLs to any company… ISPs, banks, telecom providers, demanding customer records without a warrant and attaching permanent gag orders that forbid companies from even acknowledging the request.
Force this Dario interloper into submission.
Good move
Contractors supply a product
The military chain of command decides its employment — Jim HansonDC on X
Thank you! This is not some stupid woke game with fake AI rights this is about the future of humanity. – Shem Horne on X
“Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles”
the stance:
