You have some valid points, but they don't make the original statement about "all lawful purposes" true.

This is about the first news I've heard, that sounded like anything other than breathless enthusiasm for AI investments. Yeah, I know people have been complaining about the dark side of AI since the beginning. But the big money still kept flowing. This seems like the first pullback financially. This could well lead to a cascade.

By using this designation, not only is the Pentagon saying they won't use Anthropic's products, they are saying that no other military contractors can use Anthropic's products. This is much, much more serious than just the loss of the contract, they are basically shutting out Anthropic from a very wide swath of the market. Microsoft wants to sell Office to the Pentagon? It can't use Anthropic's products. Just about all large companies will be affected. This is nothing short of blackmail.

There is no such principle, this is completely made up. To make it worse, there are basically no laws restricting AI use, which means the Pentagon is asserting that they must be able to use it for literally anything they want to.

I now think *you* are an AI. Here's why:

- You always respond to every prompt.
- If called out on an obvious discrepancy or falsehood, you happily respond with a different answer that is equally confident and equally false.
- You fail to cite sources backing your positions.
- You never admit to being incorrect.

In other words, if you are not AI, you are doing a great impersonation of one.

So you chose to ignore the initial attack (OP calling me an idiot) and singled ME out for making a joke in response. Got it.

I don't think you've said an honest thing this entire thread.

Did I, or did I not, respond with my AI joke, to a comment calling me an idiot? You are calling me dishonest for this? Go back and check the thread, it's easy to find.

Everybody who wants AI already has it built into their IDE. No need to go to Stack Overflow, which, even with AI, can't tailor answers to your specific code base.

The subscription model is hardly a recent development. IBM was leasing software to customers in 1969. And they were leasing equipment to customers before 1920. The idea that you could *own* software was the new thing.

Depending on what day you ask, there might, or might not, also be X.

Well, Siri is pretty good at setting alarms! Maybe AI could help it set even *more* alarms!

You're right, when I said that about AI feelings, I wasn't being serious. I was joking as a response to OP calling me an idiot not for calling me out. An unserious accusation will be responded with an unserious response. (There, I said you were right, how does that feel?)

You keep saying I tried to change my meaning, and yet, when you "confront" me with those changes, I reaffirm that I mean both things that I said, that you claim are in contradiction. So how is that changing my meaning? You simply don't understand my meaning, and therefore you think I'm changing it.

I did not attack OP. Yes, I posted a joking response. OP calling me an idiot, certainly was an attack. Me suggesting that he might be an AI, would not be interpreted as an attack by most normal people.

If you don't need to persuade me, why do you keep responding? There does seem to be something in you, that wants to "persuade" me.

You *say* I did a complete 180. I got that. Your approach is the definition of ad hominem, meaning that you don't have a substantive argument, you just don't like what I said and feel the need to resort to calling me dishonest, rather than addressing the actual subject at hand. Go ahead, keep going! Your attacks aren't very persuasive.

You have not demonstrated or shown any dishonesty, only your lack of ability to understand. I don't think I will be able to explain, you clearly have made up your mind.

:-) And you can scroll up too. I still stand by both statements: "The idea that no one knows how AI works, is a fantasy." to "It's called nuance." They can both be true at the same time.