I don't see how you get that reading. Anthropic is clearly allowed to sell Claude to companies not doing business with the US Military. If anything that's more likely to be non-US companies.
IIRC, the supply chain risk designation is sticky which is why it tends to ultimately mean "nobody can work with this". Amazon using claude means a DoD company can't use Amazon. Every business that touches claude gets tainted.
It's a bit like how the US Cuba sanctions worked and why they effectively isolated Cuba from everything.
Because Anthropic sells Claude through other companies that in turn do business both with Anthropic and the government. These intermediaries, large cloud companies, can't offer Claude anymore if they want to keep the government as a customer.
The government is faaaaaaaaaaaar too invested in Azure and AWS for Microsoft or Amazon to give even half a shit. The DOD has no where else to go and the companies know it. They'll sit on their hands until the legal maneuvers play out, which will take longer than this administration will be in office.
You expect hyperscalers to play chicken with the DoD?
The courts have historically been pretty consistent about giving the DoD whatever the fuck they want, going back to WW2 and even longer for the predecessors of the DoD. I agree that the next administration might reverse it, but the thing is, the government will stay irrational longer than Anthropic will remain solvent.
The US government told every American company to stop doing business with Huawei and they all did it overnight, even when it cost them billions. TSMC stopped fabricating for them, Google pulled Android licensing… The machinery of sanctions compliance is extremely well-oiled and companies fold instantly because the outcome of noncompliance is literally getting thrown in prison.
So is it actually sanctions? I believe Huawei was on the entities list. Such a list comes from the fact that the government can require export licensing. Since Anthropic is in the U.S., I do not believe it’s the same thing as Huawei.
Huawei did eventually end up on the entities list, but there was a gap between when it was initially announced and when it became law, and the divestment from contractors started immediately overnight.
This is also true, unless the government can force them to drop Anthropic on the basis that the alternative- the government dropping them- is unworkable.
Or Pete Hegseth will threaten to do the same to them unless they comply, and they will demonstrate the same inexcusable cowardice the American business class has consistently demonstrated this past year. Hope I'm wrong and this has finally woken them up!
I know he said it was not AI, but he but still described it as “slop”, lumping it in with the other examples. And said it was a video “where a woman decides to intentionally start a fight with her boyfriend” which isn’t really an accurate description. She’s a well known comedian playing an obviously exaggerated character that pokes fun at relationship dynamics.
My point here isn’t simply that “people can’t differentiate between AI and not AI” (although that is an issue for some) but that the prevalence of AI slop lowers the trust of ALL content even when they know it isn’t AI generated. This author was so fed up with the content they were being served that they were quick to dismiss other content along with it at a cursory glance.
The problem is that the typical delivery mechanism for this drug is a highly-dilute injection or transdermal patch - not 'geometric' dilution into pills in Jose's basement with questionable fillers.
The substance is too potent per physical unit of weight and volume to be conveniently dosed through other means.
Australia's soon-to-take-effect ban affects nine platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, but not HN. These bans often operate on the amount of users a platform has, so HN is unlikely to make the cut. Nobody cares about this site.
Jonathan Haidt, the most prominent psychologist pushing for restrictions on social media use for children, is also the most prominent proponent of letting kids play and roam more freely. So no, those are not the same people.
At least in part, according to the article, because the not-yet-on-GLP1 folks are NOT customers since they are often denied coverage in the first place.
The West told plenty of its companies, through public pressure or laws, that they have to divest from Russia, and they did. Rationally they recognized that selling their assets is financially more lucrative than just closing their operations and making 0$.
Now why would an corporation which alleges to not be controlled by a government refuse to sell and forego billions in income, even though it is against the interest of their shareholders?
Because they don’t want to have a strong competitor in case they come back, or gave they competitor enter other markets they are still active in. Also, not all (if any) companies that divested from Russia sold "their assets" including IP such as algorithms.
