I admire Anthropic for sticking to their principles, even if it affects the bottom line. That’s the kind of company you want to work for.
Whether they are good or evil depends on the hands that hold it.
In good hands, weapons provide defense, deterrence, and protection.
In bad hands, weapons hurt the innocent, instill fear, and oppress.
The hands that wield them make all the difference.
Some weapons are prohibited Geneva convention because they are designed to cause suffering or indiscriminately kill non-combatants:
"Weapons prohibited under the Geneva Convention and associated international humanitarian law (including the 1925 Protocol, CCW, and specific treaties) include chemical/biological agents (mustard gas, sarin), blinding lasers, expanding bullets, and non-detectable fragments. Also banned are anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.
Key prohibited and restricted weapons include:
Chemical and Biological Weapons: The 1925 Geneva Protocol and subsequent conventions (1972, 1993) banned the use, development, and stockpiling of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, including nerve agents and biological weapons.
Blinding Laser Weapons: Specifically designed to cause permanent blindness (Protocol IV of the CCW).
Non-detectable Fragments: Weapons designed to injure by fragments not detectable in the human body by X-rays (Protocol I of the CCW).
Incendiary Weapons: Restrictions on using fire-based weapons (like flamethrowers) against civilian populations (Protocol III of the CCW).
Anti-personnel Landmines: Banned under the Ottawa Treaty (1997) due to risks to civilians.
Cluster Munitions: Prohibited due to their indiscriminate nature.
These treaties aim to protect civilians and combatants from unnecessary suffering and long-term danger."
Would "good hands" choose weapons that are designed to cause suffering or that kill indiscriminately?
No, they would not.
No, OP is right, their PR department is doing a great job.
That kind of good.
That's fair, sorry for that.
> considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus
The US government is actively trying to influence politics in my country and spending huge amounts of money to do it. The US government is a much larger threat to us than our own government.
All of our tech is owned and operated by US companies, which means the US government has read/write access to all of our data. If we attempt to incentivize domestic software production (e.g. by taxing imported software, or by stipulating where our data can be stored and who can access it), the US government will destroy our economy. This has played out a few times recently.
I can't believe we were so foolish as to let this situation grow. Its going to be a painful few decades.
Note that they are still releasing interesting research
> Costco is a really popular subject for business-success case studies but I feel like business guys kinda lose interest when the upshot of the study is like "just operate with scrupulous integrity in all facets and levels of your business for four decades" and not some easy-to-fix gimmick
https://bsky.app/profile/mtsw.bsky.social/post/3lnbrfrvmss26
At peak times they run out of carts and tell the customers to go hunting in the lot for them, door greeters shouting at members across the floor, checkout queues stretch the length of the warehouse, they start half blocking the gas station entrance 30mins before close so trucks can't get in, so maybe they're turning those profit screws.
It's not their job to entertain you.
Anthropic is holding firm on incredibly weak red lines. No mass surveillance for Americans, ok for everyone else, and ok to automatic war machines, just not fully unmanned until they can guarantee a certain quality.
This should be a laughably spineless position. But under this administration it is taken as an affront to the president and results in the government lashing out.
It's probably in Anthropic's interest to throw grok to these clowns and watch them fail to build anything with it for 3 years.
Also, every other company has bent the knee and kissed the ring. And the trump admin will absolutely do everything they can to not appear weak and harm Anthropic. If it was so easy to act principled, don't you think other companies would've refused too? Eg Apple
And there is real harm here. You're reading about it - they get labeled a supply chain risk. This is negative and very tangible
Blood is on their hands already
What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?
More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?
How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)
P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.