TeknOShEeP
3d ago
The problem is that the DOW agreed to their terms, then changed its mind, then threw a hissy fit and abused the law to punish them when they didn't agree to a retroactive changing of the terms.
I'm seeing this framing thrown around a lot, but no actual evidence its true. Like, what is the actual, accepted and in-force contractual provision that Anthropic and the DoW are disagreeing on? Because the OP and reporting both state this as a provision under negotiation, not in-force.
Yeah, thats Anthropics side of the story, but as you note there is no specific contract terminology put forth there. So we still dont actually know what the debate is really about, and I am skeptical a fairly young silicon valley company has actually done the proper due diligence regarding their contractual obligations to the DoW to be in the position they claim to be in. If I were a betting man, I would wager the contract between Anthropic and the DoW does not contain any of the safeguards Anthropic thinks it does, based on my experience with similar contracts.
Also, someone needs to tell Anthropic they are roughly 40 years too late on the autonomous systems thing. The Aegis system used by the navy has had a fully autonomous mode that, once authorized by a human is capable of detecting, prioritizing, and engaging targets without any further authorization. Mostly because the navy realized at the speeds of modern missile engagements there literally is not time for humans to make decisions. Hegseth was maybe just out of diapers when the DoD formulated its policy on software being capable of killing on its own.
More options
Context Copy link