Yeah. I agree with you too.. We've been waiting forever for graphics to look true to life. This might be the way. Obviously they need to make sure the same character doesn't look different between scenes, sort the lighting weirdnessess... and remove the NEED for TWO 5090's!!! But yeah. This might work.

The more realistic risk is that a company sub-contracting to the government could have their AI shut off, impacting the government by delaying products reaching them. It's not completely inarguable. I hear you though, it's a slippery slope. Best get it ironed out now, though, and see if Anthropic should just move to the EU where the first amendment is just a pipe dream.

I can see trying to get ahead of any automated "Nope, I won't do that" error generated by AI, though. We're in a strange new world, for better or worse, AI is going to be really important to the military... And we want the best without any restrictions.

3% of the population are psychopaths. It's an immutable fact. You must be able to defend yourself from them. Pretending psychopaths don't exist is what got Iryna Zarutska killed. Some countries are run by psychopaths. Pretend they don't exist at your peril.

It's not "We NEED it so bad we are going to blacklist the company and make sure all of our suppliers can't use it either. "

I see it as "We recognize Anthropic makes the best product and we want to use it. But if they can turn it off on us at their choice then it is too dangerous for us to use." You can carry that statement to sub-contractors who also want to use it. Subtle difference but it's a reasonable take.

It really is as simple as I said it. They are the best. We want the best. Sell it to us and let us use it or find another country to make your stuff.

The DoD is simultaneously saying that they need Anthropic and that it's too dangerous to use.

I see it as "We recognize Anthropic makes the best product and we want to use it. But if they can turn it off on us at their choice then it is too dangerous for us to use." Subtle difference but it's a reasonable take.

If company X made the best widget out there, and that widget was needed for defense (or to win a war), you better believe I'd be in favor of forcing them to sell it to the government. That's what the defense production act is all about. And that's also where I'm going. If there is only so much compute possible, and companies gobble it all up, then it's reasonable (reasonable is the key word here) that they can be compelled to supply the US. Not that the US should make it themselves, they can't, obviously. "Agreement" goes as far as until bombs start dropping, then you don't get a choice. Just like I can be drafted and compelled to fight, so can companies.

Oh look, a reasonable take. Thanks for giving me hope that not everyone on Slashdot is completely NPR'd.

It's nothing like that, at all. It is exactly as I laid it out. They have a world class capability they are selling as a service. The US wants to use that service. They said no. They refuse to sell to the US (or in this case say the US is violating the TOS) for legitimate wartime needs. It's like a steel plant deciding not to sell to the US to make munitions. We NEED capable AI, it's not an option. If they are going to piggy hog the energy and GPUs then they're out... There is only so much AI capability out there. It's a reasonable position.

If company X provides mission critical capability, and company X can say "Nah, that doesn't fit our mojo match, we say no.".. Then that IS a supply chain risk, a big one. And frankly, with the amount of finite energy required to run AI, the US can't risk to fool around with vendors who can just say "no we're not doing that". Other countries aren't going to pull their AI punches, the US can't afford to either. Sad but true.

Deeply unserious = entertaining... But he's also very accurate. His reviews of the new StarWars nails how I felt about it. For example, consider this gem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That is how I feel about new StarTrek - they ARE written by children, with all the wisdom and (lack of) real world experience they have to offer.

Here, I even found his video which describes it perfectly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

What's wrong with Voyager? My teenage daughters and I are watching the series right now. It's great! I can't stand any of the new junk after Enterprise, and I tried. The 90's were gold. The Critical Drinker on YouTube outlines what's wrong with new StarTrek pretty well. I know it's gone, dead, and buried. But at least I can show my kids what the world used to be like... What heroes used to act like. What a role model is, and isn't. Old Trek (and StarGate for that matter) had the right of it. Modern Trek just is sassy teenagers in space.

I don't mind AI content (There's some good StarWars stuff that regular people can make now that is pretty good, tbh). But the Joe Rogan ads for crap needs to go!

If Youtube can make money by showing an ad then a real person should have to look at it first. How hard would that be? smh...