Comment by uncletammy
1 day ago
Not in software though. Clear precedent has been established via EULAs. Software companies set the rules and if users don't like, they can piss off. I don't see why it would be any different for the government.
1 day ago
Not in software though. Clear precedent has been established via EULAs. Software companies set the rules and if users don't like, they can piss off. I don't see why it would be any different for the government.
I'm not a fan of EULAs, I think if you acquire some software anonymously and run it on your own systems you should be able to do whatever you want. however if you want software hosted on someone else's machines, or want to enter into a contractual relationship with them then government or not you should not have the right to compel work from them.
A lot of things are different when it comes to national security, and military.
Congress could come up with an act it it's for national interest.
The military isn't the typical End User.
Congress could, but didn't. Instead, the federal government made threats to retaliate if Anthropic doesn't comply.
Agreed they haven't and it will be difficult to see them voting in favour. But there are precedents. The Patriot act was more radical than a potential mandate for AI providers to prioritize national security.
Depending on the country, their legal value is limited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enf...
The government is armed and can exempt itself from prosecution either by judicial means and/or by naked force. So it isn’t just a cut and dry licensing problem.
Because it's the government? Companies need to follow the rules the government sets, if they like it or not
The government cannot set arbitrary rules, it has to follow the law. (And, at least with a functioning separation of powers, it cannot change the law arbitrarily.)
Um. No, that's not how it works...