The main idea is that in legal contracts, the written signed paper is just evidence for what the agreed-upon contract was. The actual contract is the agreement itself - which the paper may not reflect exactly. If the two parties disagree on what is the actual contract, the paper is of course strong evidence for one side or the other, but it's not the final word, other evidence may be brought that contradicts the written contract and that can be held to be more convincing.
In contrast, the smart contract crowd wants the contract code to represent the final word, and if any party didn't notice that the contract code didn't match the understanding they had of the agreement, too bad.
The origin of life means abiogenesis - how the first living "stuff" arose from simpler chemistry.
And it is just as relevant if you believe in panpsychism as it is if you don't - panspsychism holds that rocks and even electrons are conscious to some extent, but that has nothing to do with how we got from organic chemistry to proto-cells (as both protocells and organic molecules have some degree of consciousness in this theory).
Questions of the origin of life are only irrelevant/settled for those who subscribe to explicit divine origins of life, such as Creationists, who hold that God literally created the first life from nothing directly - that it was an unknowable miracle, not a physical process.
Asking a random question in the middle of a discussion about something different is obviously either a troll or a bad-faith rhetorical flourish. If you actually wanted to engage, you could explain what relevance souls have to the discussion at hand, and what you expect the answer you'd receive to mean.
Often people who believe in souls, think there is something supernatural to consciousness and therefore non-humans cannot have that. If that is what someone thinks, then a lot of confusion is clarified. Those who do not believe in souls can dismiss the statement of their dismissing the question whether ai is conscious or not.
I am okay with receiving a straight answer in either direction.
Don't want to speak for Hardbass too loudly, but seems like he's asking about dualism? It's a fairly old debate, "does man need a soul to be conscious?"
+edit: I've actually been quite curious about how people might answer the soul question too, but was too afraid to ask.
I see too many comments dismissing the possibility of ai consciousness without reason or with weird reasons that seem to potentially imply a dualist thought process hidden.
OK, explicitly designed to be used against adversaries. So the government is explicitly designating Anthropic as an adversary of the United States of America (a domestic adevarsary, not foreign, sure, GP was wrong on that part).
And the reason Anthropic is an adversary of the USA? They have a clause in their license agreement that their products must not be used in surveillance or military targeting decisions.
Sounds like a fair characterization then? Trying to dictate or restrict the (domestic) military uses of a product is literally an adversarial position to the national military interest.
Where did you get "trying to dictate" from? The text is "the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert [...]"
A mutually agreed upon "you may not use our product for X or Y purpose" in a contract clearly doesn't pose any such risk.
Trying to argue for and enforce a 'you may not use our product for an express objective of the US military' provision is pretty clearly "trying to dictate". Actively cancelling, moving capabilities behind a 'safety' wall, or even threatening to would be a clear sabotage of the US military's operational capabilities. It'd be one thing is Anthropic merely expressed an opinion, but my understanding is that it was/is an outright 'we will not allow' as opposed to a 'we'd prefer you didn't'.
Imagine if Microsoft tried the same with excel or power point. "um actually in the fine print of the EULA it says you may not use our product for military purposes so we will revoke your access unless you stop using power point for mission briefings that might result in the deaths of civilians". Would fly about as well as a lead brick.
Again, the statute says nothing about "dictating terms." It covers an adversary who might sabotage or subvert a system. And no, Anthropic did not cancel anything, did not pull any capabilities, and has no backdoor into deployed models. There was no "um actually." It wrote two prominent usage restrictions into a contract, the military read and signed it, and then later demanded the terms be removed.
As a sanity check, I’d highly recommend trying out your own line of reasoning in cases which you think you might feel differently about. For example, imagine it's instead a certain authoritarian state saying "obey the Party or get blacklisted as a national security threat."
It might feel good in the moment, like "yeah, Anthropic, don't tell the military what to do," because you agree with this particular call. But the government doesn't give that power back, and you might not be so happy about the next way it gets used.
No, it's not. If Anthropic is a supply chain risk, that means that if you are working on a project that will be used for the DoD, you can't use Claude or any other Anthropic product for any purpose whatsoever in that project. Asked Claude to change the color of a PPTX for a sprint demo you're doing? Oops, you've know introduced a supply chain risk and your company is liable for damages or at least losing its entire contract with the DoD.
They do, but this is not it. This is designating Anthropic as an adversary of the USA, and it is forbidding anyone who wants to sell to the DoD from using Anthropic products for anything. This is a massive attack on free speech, free enterprise, and the market.
That's not normal in a free country - even less so in one that claims to have a free market.
Anthropic said "don't use our products for targetting decisions in military ops". The DoD could have easily said "actually then, we won't use your products at all". Instead, the DoD said "either you let us use your products in targeting decisions, or we won't let you sell to anyone who sells to us for any purpose, using a law that only applies to adversaries of the USA".
> using a law that only applies to adversaries of the USA
Everyone keeps parroting this despite it not being true. And you're missing the point. The DoD specifically doesn't want it in their supply chain at all because it's an intelligent system that will work against the DoDs goals, by design, in certain scenarios.
Your argument boils down to, "The DoD isn't allowed to not want Claude in their supply chain", which is crazy.
Of course they can. Any supplier is free to set terms for how their products are to be used. The DoD is free to not agree to those terms - but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose - which is what the extreme measure they took represents.
> but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk
Yes they are free to do that. You have to blame Congress for giving them that authority under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act and specifically 41 U.S.C. § 4713.
But Claude’s ToS didn’t prohibit use of Claude for sensitive military operation but it was coded to do so. It was part of the government’s evidence
No, they can only do that if a company is a true supply chain risk. Not everyone some idiot in the government doesn't like is a such a huge risk to the country that they can be banned from doing business with anyone doing business with the DoD.
Ultimately this is for the courts to decide, and the current decision is not final. And while the two Trump-nominated judges agreed with you, the other judge agrees with me - so at least we can say that neither my nor your position is legally absurd.
> Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.
Sure, but we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The government doesn't just get to do whatever it wants. People and corporations have certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is not being compelled to work with the government. The government can't force a company to work for them except under extreme circumstances. Which currently no extreme circumstances have been claimed and no one is talking about nationalizing (the act of forcing the company to work for the government) anthropic
The law being used was passed by Congress who is elected democratically and then reinforced by the judiciary who is either also voted in democratically or appointed by the democratically elected Congress. Lots of people want the US to be a dictatorship but it's a far cry from an actual one.
Sure, but also just because Congress gave the government a power to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary circumstance doesn't mean that the government can simply claim the circumstance happens all the time and use the measure whenever it strikes the fancy of some executive.
Ultimately whether Anthropic is a true supply chain risk for the United States military is a question of fact, and the courts will have to decide. That the President or Secretary of Defense doesn't like a company doesn't make them a supply chain risk.
Sure, which is why the judicial branch reviews such decisions, and has reviewed this one and has come to the conclusion that it was justified. Just because you don't like their ruling doesn't make it not binding.
Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution.
A judicial ruling is by definition in accord with the law or constitution (because it literally becomes the law) whether you or I like it or not, if and until such a time as it is overturned.
A judicial ruling is separate from a law, and it's actually quite common for judicial rulings to be found non-constitutional (or even struck down by a normal higher court, if we're talking in general and not this particular case). In particular, only judges are bound by precedent, and even then, only precedent from their own circuit, not the entire USA. Whereas laws made by contract are binding on everyone, and they apply federally.
Rulings are a type of law, as in the general term of something written down and set together (literally, leges) that binds one of the populace with their society. As I said, until they are modified by the legislature or struck down by another court, they are the law of the land.
No, I don't think that's correct. Humans are fallible, and just because a court says that something is in accord with law/constitution, doesn't mean it actually is.
That distinction is academic, of course, because when the courts decide a certain way, then of course that's how things will play out.
Well, except when the Trump admin ignores court orders.
Seems like you're conflating legal and moral. The law is exactly what the legislature and courts say it is, because it is what's written down. That doesn't mean it's always morally right.
This isn't about morals, it's about legal correctness.
If a ruling will get overturned in the future, then it's wrong today. It's enforceable until it's overturned, but it's not correct. Two judges making opposite decisions about the same question are not both right.
(I'm assuming the overturning is valid for the sake of simplicity. If it isn't then the argument is the same but mirrored.)
No, it's correct today with the best of our society's knowledge. You can't retroactively say it was wrong looking from today into the future. Only once we get to the future and something is overturned can we say the past decision wasn't correct.
But we can say that if it will be overturned, it's already wrong. (unless the overturning is the wrong one, yadda yadda)
We do not have to wait to use basic logic.
And judges do not always work on "the best of our society's knowledge". Some judges have massive biases. They make incorrect rulings that we can see, and sometimes the incorrectness is not only obvious but objective, like when multiple judges are on a case and some dissent; they can't all be right.
If being the operative word. Because we cannot tell the future we cannot operate on the assumption that it is wrong now. And I meant by society's collective knowledge so even if some judges dissent or make bad rulings, the majority agreed and it is majority agreement, not unanimous agreement, upon which society operates.
Nobody is operating on assumptions. They're giving an opinion on a ruling that doesn't directly affect them.
Like, do I just quote this entire thing? "Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution."
A wrong ruling isn't in accord with the law. A wrong ruling is binding, at least temporarily, but it's a legal failure.
A ruling being binding is the law, it literally becomes the law regardless of what you or I believe it to be. Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law. To me, it is law today if it is ruled on and can be enforced regardless of whatever happens to it in the future.
Rulings go on top of laws go on top of the constitution. And any level can be in violation of the levels below it. A law can be unconstitutional, and a ruling can be "not in accord with the law and/or the constitution".
> Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law.
Maybe. But I think my interpretation is the same as what kelnos meant.
In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
> In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
Well that's the definition I'm using so that's where we disagree it seems.
Oh, pfff, please, this is some kindergarten nonsense.
These are not equal market participants coming together to exchange goods and services. This is government and a private entity. This is nuclear weapons with public trust and god knows what.
Well, that's what this court case is about. The government believes they have that power, and Anthropic and others believe they don't. You clearly believe they do, and I clearly believe they don't. It's fine to disagree. Ultimately SCOTUS may decide on this, and that'll be the final word. Not that SCOTUS is always correct in its rulings, but at the end of the day, their decision is final.
I've got no issue siding against Anthropic when they're wrong! Anthropic had a similar dispute with Bessent over the Fable launch, and there I take the government's side without reservation. If the government thinks they've found a national security problem with your highly capable new model, obviously you should agree to voluntarily withdraw it until they're satisfied, even if your best and correct guess is that it's just a minor jailbreak.
Anthropic has no such history. The backlash to the Fable release saw a number of social media influencers promoting a similar lie, which I frankly suspect was part of a coordinated Trumpist media effort. Releasing a model with known, documented limitations that constrain its performance on certain kinds of tasks is completely different than releasing a model which is "trying to sabotage people they don't trust".
If I sell a torque wrench with a maximum setting of 1000 foot-pounds, and the government says they'd really like 1500, I'm not sabotaging them by explaining that my wrenches aren't safe when used that way and refusing to remove the limitation.
> The backlash to the Fable release saw a number of social media influencers promoting a similar lie, which I frankly suspect was part of a coordinated Trumpist media effort.
Alright, not worth talking to conspiracy theorists (even if Anthropic literally said so in their release blog posts). I'm sure Wired is part of a "Trumpist media effort."
Any system that is missing a task bar/dock/whatever you call it is a non-starter for serious work. That's a major regression that completely kills default Gnome, and shows just how incompetent their UX designers are. Even the Windows 8 designers knew better than that, and that's saying something.
It is one of the "interesting things to look at" if one is switching between apps and files regularly. It's not just an app launcher with icons (though in some environments it is and that's their UX failure). It shows important variable info, like file or directory names per program, sometimes status of the action inside app (connected/disconnected or action completion percentage etc.). Clock is useful too, as are notification badges. Taskbar is for work, not just to take space.
I used to think task bars were pretty neat, back in the 1990s. But once I started keeping more than a dozen windows open, it became a waste of space. And now that I typically have 200+ windows open, the concept of a taskbar is ... like trying to get a fish to ride a bicycle, or like having a rock in my shoe. It gets in my way and provides no benefit to me.
But that's okay. I don't have to use one. Different people have different needs and preferences, and their choice to use a taskbar-free workflow doesn't interfere with their ability to get serious work done.
A dog enters a bar. He doesn't see anything, so he says "shall I open this door?"
(the combination of an article about a mysterious aspect of such a well known ancient god and your joke made me think of this mysterious Babylonian joke, recorded from 1700 BCE but whose meaning we can only theorize about)
The main idea is that in legal contracts, the written signed paper is just evidence for what the agreed-upon contract was. The actual contract is the agreement itself - which the paper may not reflect exactly. If the two parties disagree on what is the actual contract, the paper is of course strong evidence for one side or the other, but it's not the final word, other evidence may be brought that contradicts the written contract and that can be held to be more convincing.
In contrast, the smart contract crowd wants the contract code to represent the final word, and if any party didn't notice that the contract code didn't match the understanding they had of the agreement, too bad.
reply