Ah, I upvoted specifically because those countries do not control Anthropic's products, and thus reasoned that the comment implied that an adversary, for the purpose of the law, was some external not-quite-enemy type entity, and that application of the law to Anthropic was thus unreasonable, as it obviously is.
Of course they don't but the post was responding to "what adversaries" in the definition of supply chain risk posted above, and those are some of the real answers to that. I did not read that comment as implying anthropic was controlled by those countries at all, just responding to the actual question. My take away from the post was that those are actual adversaries and, unless the administration is claiming anthropic products ARE controlled by those adversaries, the claim of "supply chain risk" is not in good faith.
Because it's incorrect.
Those are (arguably) adversaries but the actor here is Anthropic, which is not an adversary.
Because those countries do not control Anthropic's products.
Ah, I upvoted specifically because those countries do not control Anthropic's products, and thus reasoned that the comment implied that an adversary, for the purpose of the law, was some external not-quite-enemy type entity, and that application of the law to Anthropic was thus unreasonable, as it obviously is.
Of course they don't but the post was responding to "what adversaries" in the definition of supply chain risk posted above, and those are some of the real answers to that. I did not read that comment as implying anthropic was controlled by those countries at all, just responding to the actual question. My take away from the post was that those are actual adversaries and, unless the administration is claiming anthropic products ARE controlled by those adversaries, the claim of "supply chain risk" is not in good faith.
Alas, even my question about it was downvoted.