[flagged]
If your company makes an herbicide that happens to be very good at killing off anyone who drinks it at a high concentration in their water supply, you're saying that there should be no way for your company to resist being used for mass murder (including unavoidable collateral damage)?
Also, the core mission of the military is not "killing its adversaries through any means necessary". It is to defend state interests. Some people have a belief that mass killing is the best mechanism for accomplishing that. I do not agree with, nor do I want to associate with, those people. They are morally and objectively wrong. Yes, sometimes killing people is the most effective -- or more likely, the quickest -- way. In practice, it doesn't work very well. The threat of violence is much more powerful than actually committing violence. If you have to resort to the latter, you've usually screwed up and lost the chance to achieve the optimal outcome. It is true that having no restrictions whatsoever on your ability to commit violence is going to be more intimidating, but it also means that you have to maintain that threat constantly for everyone, because nobody has any other reason to give you what you want.
The actual military is not evil. Your conception of it is.
> The actual military is not evil. Your conception of it is.
You're right, but there's a a real question here: should a company have the ability to control or veto the decisions of the democratically-elected government?
To give different hypothetical example: should Microsoft be allowed to put terms in its Windows contracts with the government, stipulating that Windows cannot be used to create or enforce certain tax policy or regulations that Microsoft disagrees with? Windows is all over, and I'm sure pretty much every government process touches Windows at some point, so such a term would have a lot of power.
I don't think "control or veto" is fair. Anthropic is not trying to prevent the US government from creating full autonomous killbots based on inadequate technology. They are only using contract law to prevent their own stuff from being used in that way.
But that aside, my opinion is that to a first order approximation, yes a company should very much be able to have say in its contract negotiations with any party including the government. It's very similar to the draft. I don't believe a draft is ethical until the situation is extreme, and there ought to be tight controls on what it takes to declare the situation to be that extreme. At any other time, nobody should be forced to join the military and shoot people, and corporations (that are made of people) should not be forced to have their product used for shooting people.
A corporation is a legal fiction to describe a group of people. Some restrictions can be placed on corporations in exchange for the benefits that come from that legal fiction, but nothing that overrides the rights of its constituent people.
Governments are made of people too. Again, a subset of people are given some powers in order to better achieve the will of the people, but with tight controls on those powers to keep the divergence to a minimum. (Of course, people will always find the cracks and loopholes and break out of their constraints, but I'm talking about design not real-world implementation here.)
So to look at your hypothetical, first I'd say it's not very different from the question of whether an individual person should be forced to personally enforce tax policy. Normally, I'd say no. There are many situations where the government needs more say and authority in such things, but that must only be achieved via representatives of the people passing laws to allow such authority. Other than that, yes: I believe a company should be able to negotiate whatever contract terms it wants. In a democracy, we are not subjects of a controlling government; the government is an extension of us.
In practical terms, if Microsoft were to insist on that contract stipulation, the government would not agree to the contract and would award its business to someone else. If the government were especially out of control and/or unethical, it might punish Microsoft with regulations or declarations of supply chain risk or whatever, but that is clearly overstepping its bounds and ought to be considered illegal if it isn't already. The usual fallback would be that the people would throw the people perpetrating that out on their asses. That's the "democratically-elected part".
Obviously, Microsoft would be stupid to insist on such a thing in their contract, and its employees would probably lose all confidence in the corporate leadership. Most likely, they'd leave and start Muckrosaft next door that rapidly develops a similar product and sells it to the government under a reasonable contract.
Basically, I'm always going to start from people first, and use organizations and laws only in order to achieve the will of the people. The fact that the people are stupid does make that harder, but the whole point of democracy is that we'll work out the right balance over time.
> The threat of violence is much more powerful than actually committing violence.
While I agree with this statement, the only way the threat works is if from time to time you apply violence to reinforce your capability and availability to actually do it. And the US is really good at actually being violent so others don't even think about doing something against it, at least the majority of countries anyway.
Now apply the same logic to the current Iran war.
Al Jazeera has some very good insights into this, and the gist of it is: the Iranian regime is in a fight for its life with nothing to lose. If they are degraded enough, a revolution will start in Iran and they will be killed by the people. Or by US/IL bombs - whichever comes first. There is no way they get out of this alive. They are trying to prolong the inevitable.
Whenever we say "the regime is hated by it's people it will collapse" it should be asked "then why didn't it collapse already?". In Iran metropolitan areas are where you see opposition. That's also where people have cameras and media orgs tend to be. We get a warped depiction of opposition in Iran even without our own media's baggage. Meanwhile the power base of Iran is everywhere but metropolitan cities. And there's a lot of clients who benefit from the regime. I think this might be worse than the sectarian violence that came out of the Hussein regimes collapse because the Sunni sect his base was built around was still a minority. This time it's the majority and the people being fought against are the Americans, the Israelis and the Arabs so their backs are against the wall this is a total war already from their side.
You are describing Libya scenario, not a 'lived prosperously ever after'. There is no credible opposition in Iran to take the mantle.
It does not an established opposition because the current regime has the habit of killing anyone it doesn't like or goes against the official line. Now there is a chance for opposition to form.
With the US & Israel supporting the minorities (most likely offering them independence), in the hope of toppling the regime, and bombing mostly Persians, the most likely outcome (assuming they are actually able to force regime change, which is far from guaranteed) is fragmentation and general lawlessness.
Note that whoever inherits the regime would have to deal with wholesale destruction of the country, traumatized population and hate for those who bombed them and killed their relatives and children. Slavishly obeying the new foreign overlords will not be very popular. Have we not learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you still believe the fairy tales of welcoming the liberators?
The wars are already total for the weaker sides. See Ukraine/Iran. Did not stop the stronger side attacking.
You are advocating for no constraints (total war) on the stronger side. Taken literally, that means genocide of the losers. Really, that's what you want?
But yes, you are right, the world would be much simpler in such case - there will be no humans left. OK, maybe some hunter-gatherers.
Taken literally, it means genocide of the losers is an option the winning side has. It always has been.
Note that Genghis Khan's explicit plan when he conquered China was to wipe out the Chinese to make room for Mongols. He wasn't stopped from doing that; there was no constraint to block him.
But he was persuaded not to.
If I say, no, then am I stopping the military?
I feel like it is reasonable that I can say "no, I don't want to sell you my apples."
I cannot for the life of me figure out why that means I am stopping the military from killing people. The US Military will definitely still be able to kill people for centuries. I'm just saying I don't want to participate in it.
Evidence (the Commander in Chief calling the opposition terrorists, and celebrating their government executions, for example) indicates that reality indeed reflects the things you personally don't believe.
So in short it doesn't matter what the Pentagon thinks as Trump is the commander in chief and as far as I know the Pentagon has to follow his orders.
If government can force any private company to work specially for government then US is no better than PRC
Legit war time measures can be a thing (that's why it's fucked if president can just start a war and then use that as excuse for any war time measures they like)
And for better or worse, it is actually good that it is like this. Otherwise, if Congress declares war on Iran or China or whatever, the whole country will be put on a war footing, companies will be directed to build whatever the Pentagon says it needs, drafts will be enforced and so on. And it would be pretty ugly.
What happened was different: a private company decided to enforce some terms, as they can do during peace time and they have been bullied in a way that is disgraceful precisely because it didn't happen during war time nor it has been done using the existing laws around that.
What is the purpose of having laws in the first place if we accept that the government can rule by intimidation?
usa was not aggressor
fat chance congress declaring war of aggression on a peaceful country
However, the military is bound by US and international law. It's clear they're not going to obey either of those with respect to this contract.
On top of that, Anthropic has correctly pointed out that the use cases Trump was pushing for are well beyond the current capabilities of any of Anthropic models. Misusing their stuff in the way Trump has been (in violation of the contract) is a war crime, because it has already made major mistakes, targeted civilians, etc.