Comment by isodev
2 days ago
Indeed, Anthropic can’t afford to be the ones that impose any kind of sense in the market - that’s supposed to be the job of the government by creating policy, regulations and installing watchdogs to monitor things.
But lucky for the AI companies, most of them are based in place that only has a government on paper and everyone forgot where that paper is.
I believe they could “afford” it, given their staggering valuation. And, by being the ones with sense, they might even attract the kind of customer that wants to do business with companies with principles! The audacity, eh?
> that’s supposed to be the job of the government by creating policy, regulations and installing watchdogs to monitor things
But that government cannot trust the other government on the other side of the world to implement the same restrictions, so we find ourselves in this Nash equilibrium.
The government is why they are dropping their pledge.
https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-hegseth-ai-pentagon-mil...
That's because their government is asking for things that shouldn't be asked - again, no regulation, no oversight.
The government is forcing them to change their policy, by definition that is regulation and oversight.
Let's say that the government was forcing a company to change their overall right-to-repair or return policy in order to avoid being on a blacklist, would that not be seen as oversight and regulation?
Whether the regulation is legitimate or of benefit is a different argument.
11 replies →
No, their Responsible Scaling Policy and their government contract are not related. The RSP governs how Anthropic itself behaves w/r/t developing, testing, and releasing new models. The contract was signed with stipulations around how the government can use existing models (No mass surveillance, no military targeting without a human in the loop) which Hegseth wants removed in a standoff that hasn't yet resolved.