Personally I favor a less interventionist foreign policy. But that change can only come about through the political process, not by unaccountable corporate employees making arbitrary decisions about how certain products can be used.
Of course it is.
Think about it this way: if you could guarantee that the military suffers no human losses when attacking a foreign country, do you think that's going to more or less foreign interventions?
The tools available to the military influence policy, these things are linked.
US military is already overwhelmingly powerful, there's 0 reason to make it even more powerful.
Individual Americans aren't slaves. They can do as they please and are under no obligation to help build weapons for warfighters. But I think it's ridiculous and offensive for a US corporation to presume to take on a role as moral arbiters by placing arbitrary limits on US government use of certain products. There are larger issues here that need to be addressed through the political process, not through commercial software license agreements.
A corporation is just a group of people. Anthropic isn't even public, and therefore it's directors aren't subject to any sort of fiduciary duty enshrined in law. They can collectively act as they wish.
I meant to suggest that corps being unable to take those positions results in such a world for Americans at those corps
If the US actually cared they'd formally place Taiwan under nuclear protection.
It is an ethical dilemma: believing an armed force will act unethically is in fact a valid reason to refuse to arm them. You are taking a nationalistic view regarding the worth of life.
And if you believe it is unethical to arm them, it is rational to use whatever leverage you have available to you - such as refusing to sell your company's product.
Furthermore, one of the two points at issue was regarding surveiling civilians.
What, to you, is the political process? Why is wielding your economic leverage to incite change illegitimate to you?