THis is true. You also get a better understanding for AI's limitations, familiarity of where to be skeptical, and a feel for when a context is losing its mind. I like to put it this way: nobody who can't outthink an AI should be using an AI for anything important.

Ummm...it was called the Department of WAR all the way back to the 1800's. It was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949. It was also called the War Department, from early on.

NvIdia has over 10B in Anthropic.
Microsoft has over 5B
Amazon has over 8B

If Anthropic is deemed a "supply chain risk", then all of these companies will be legally forced to divest. Their investments will get pennies on the dollar in the fire sale.

And they are the tip of the iceberg.

It's Department of Defense, you fucking fascist collaborator.

Prohibition was repealed.

I don't disagree. Personally I think the Federal government got too powerful after the civil war & we really don't even have the same type of government that the founders envisioned.

I'd be somewhat in favor of an Article 5 convention so long as any changes had to be subject to a vote like the President is elected. The Electoral Collage system is absolutely brilliant & gives the individual vote maximum power because a handful of voters can change the outcome of an entire election. If people really want something they need to get out and vote. If you stay home you can't complain if the other side doesn't.

Anyway, good luck to us all.

Well you're not wrong. Most people forget the 9th & 10th amendments and what they actually say.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        - Basically saying, "just because we listed a few specific Rights here, that doesn't mean those are the only ones The People have."

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
        - The Federal Government is not permitted to just assume new powers because we didn't specifically restrict it here. If it's not specifically listed in this document the government cannot do it.

How far afield of these rules has the Federal strayed? How much longer will The People tolerate it?

Wait, what?

The Constitution is a restriction on the powers of the Federal Government, not on Anthropic. The Federal Government does have the ability to "regulate commerce" under what is called the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

I'm not sure what particular law(s) c/would apply here - if any - however I'm certain various courts might have to render a judgement.

It wouldn't be news if you looked at their terms of service -- which you should. The ToS explicitly say they use a combination of automated systems, human review, and reports to identify and investigate violations of their usage terms, including violence, abuse, fraud, impersonation, disinformation, foreign influence campaigns , abusive sexual content, and academic dishonesty. This includes "anonymous" sessions that are saved for a minimum of 30 days. You have no expectation of privacy from the provider's compliance teams.

This is *absolutely* standard among the major online players. So why not use a local AI workstation with a couple of big-ass GPU cards in it to run the campaign? That's what they *should* have done. But the major online players like ChatGPT and Claude are much better at realistic content generation than the widely available local models you can run.

What they should have done is design and run the compaign on a local AI workstation, and used the local workstation to generate prompts they could feed into burner accounts on public services like ChatGPT and Claude. But they got lazy and ran the *whole* operation in ChatGPT, right in plain fiew of the OpenAI compliance teams the ToS they evidently didn't read would have told them were there. They even did *performance reviews* in the same account.

Remember folks, these "spooks" are just mid-level paper-pushers in an opaque communist bureacuracy. You can never discount inertia in such an environment. Because this was something new, they might even have had trouble getting the purchase of some high end GPUs approved.

That is an accidental attitude. I don't even understand what you're trying to imply here.

The default assumption, by literally everyone, is that if it's in an ad, it's not a statement to be trusted. Ads are *by nature* untrustworthy, they are a biased view meant to get you to be interested in the product. It's up to the person with the wallet to then do actual research, and they are literally the only person to blame if they trust the ad. If the ads were telling you the limitation of the product, then the person to blame would be the marketing team that created the ad, they should be fired for incompentence.

If the government is depending on ads to evaluate the capabilities of the AI, that's where you should focus the outrage. If the ads were in any way saying that Claude isn't capable of doing anything including making you breakfast and turning you into a stud that all women want, then your outrage should be with the terrible marketing team that decided that their competition deserves market share.

Ok. The founding fathers didn't want the President of the United States to have ANY POWERS to make any decisions inside the country. The goal was for the President to merely be the administrative head to enforce laws Congress pass, and its only check on Congress was the veto power. The President also served as a Commander in Chief and had the power to sign treaties with foreign governments, but those powers were meant to be EXTREMELY limited, as they gave only Congress the power to declare war, and Congress was required to ratify any treaties with foreign governments.

If the President has the power to make ANY DECISIONS WHATSOEVER, instead of enforcing decisions those in congress have made, then it's not the role the founding fathers wanted.

They also wanted the executive to be very neutral. Many of them were against the concept of political parties, but that turned out to be inevitable. However, up until the 12th amendment, the vice-president was the runner up, whoever got the second-most votes by the electoral college. So, under that system, Hillary would have been Trump's VP his first term, and Harris would have been Trump's VP his second term. Because they wanted to ensure a check even within the executive, with someone with different views being the one to break ties in the senate.

I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

Zenith, Motorola (Quasar), Admiral, RCA, GE televisions in the United States. (worked on them in the 70's), but then along came the Japanese TV's in the late 70's early 80's and along with the cheaper labor, and solid state televisions and cheaper prices, the American television industry collapsed. Now, the Japanese television industry is going through the same thing. The Chinese, with their massive cheap labor, ability to reverse engineer other things, has pretty much taken over the television set industry.

Well, no. It's true you can't buy books for the purposes of scanning them *and then making them available online* (Hachette v. Internet Archive). Scanning them for AI training is not settled law in every Federal District, although in at least one that has been ruled transformative and therefore allowable (Bartz v Anthropic, Northern District of California).

Anthropic famously bought a lot of copyrighted books and scanned them to ingest into its model training corpus. Arguably they aren't violating copyright because what they are doing is *transformative* -- turning words into a statistical map of word associations.

But what China is doing by inferring the structure of that map doesn't touch on *any* kind of intellectual property of Anthropics. Sure, the map is a trade secret, but they've exposed that trade secret through their public interface. It's not human created so it's not copyrightable. Even if that map were patentable, which it probably isn't, it's not patented.

The worst you can say is that China is violating the service's terms of service, which may have no legal force there.