The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.
throw0101a 16 minutes ago [-]
> Why can't they expedite for special cases?
To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers…
> The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive briefing and public oral argument, and result in lengthy written opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and of any concurring and dissenting justices.
The law is normally supposed to repay whatever damage you suffered while the law was running.
judgeizgw 34 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
35 minutes ago [-]
colechristensen 25 minutes ago [-]
>Why can't they expedite for special cases?
They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides.
Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been more beneficial than harmful.
3eb7988a1663 10 minutes ago [-]
Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm
This is a fast paced business environment where one company being explicitly disallowed by the government could create long-lasting damage. How many institutions might have gone with the safer OpenAI and will not revisit the decision?
bulbar 7 minutes ago [-]
You sure they didn't lose governmental contracts because of it?
Also, the current administration doesn't care much about the law but what Trump and his people like and dislike. They made it very clear that they don't like Anthropic, so they won't get any contracts now, this ruling doesn't really matter until Trump is out of office.
None of this provable, of course.
They even fired people for investigating the storm on the Capitol. The message was pretty clear: we don't care about the law or what your job is, if you do something we dislike we retaliate, so you better become corrupt and stop caring as well or quit now on your own terms.
physicalecon 22 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
bushido 49 minutes ago [-]
It was a master stroke in international politics though, the US created an arms race towards sovereign ai, small models, and self-hosting - exactly like they wanted to.
(sarcasm intended)
angry_octet 11 minutes ago [-]
The Iran war and SoH crisis has been great for EV uptake outside of the US. In combination with the US AI apartheid, it has been a huge boost for Chinese EVs and Chinese AI adoption.
dboreham 30 minutes ago [-]
Similarly the war created unstoppable momentum towards decarbonization.
thinkcontext 15 minutes ago [-]
Good for Anthropic for standing up for themselves but think of the masses of companies that decided not to take the risk. The tone was definitely set at Trump's inauguration with all the tech execs front and center on display. They knew that if they didn't play ball Trump would use government power against them.
Law firms blackmailed into doing pro bono work for Trump's pet causes, intelligence analysts not able to tell the truth, energy companies giving up wind leases and switching to fossil fuels. And of course the constant shakedowns for cash.
In his recent interview Emil Michael (DoW undersecretary, "AI czar") even mentions that the Anthropic case served as motivation for Google folding.
It is a shame that Google's leadership is so spineless. On the minuscule off-chance any of those VPs are reading HN - you are bad and you should feel shame for increasing x-risk for a percentage point of profit.
Arubis 33 minutes ago [-]
Judge rules horse must return to barn.
glerk 11 minutes ago [-]
No fine imposed on the Trump Administration corporation (doing business as the federal government of the US of A)? Does the current legal system allow Anthropic to sue for loss of revenue, reputational damage, etc.?
skeledrew 33 minutes ago [-]
> unlawfully retaliated
Can it be at all lawful to retaliate though?
replwoacause 21 minutes ago [-]
Most of what Trump does is illegal.
darig 19 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
trimethylpurine 25 minutes ago [-]
I don't agree. When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk.
Prevent everyone from doing it or don't prevent anyone. You can't single out and cripple only one country.
I don't imagine that this was Anthropic's intent anyway. They were just trying to say that it shouldn't be used for warfare. Respectable, but short sighted considering that they couldn't stop other people from using it for that same purpose.
dosisking 9 minutes ago [-]
> When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk.
The 'national security risk' is imaginary and exists solely in the minds of the government morons in charge of AI policy
techblueberry 6 minutes ago [-]
You’re free to not agree with the law but you should know sometimes there are consequences for acting on that belief.
qotgalaxy 13 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
protocolture 28 minutes ago [-]
There was a guy in the comments of the first article on this topic, who claimed to be an expert on this law and was adamant that the decision by the Trump admin was perfectly legal.
Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.
swingboy 14 minutes ago [-]
It’s possible this could go before multiple judges who won’t all agree with this particular one.
goatlover 10 minutes ago [-]
It's also possible the Trump admin has people commenting online.
judgeizgw 35 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 03:19:08 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers…
> The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive briefing and public oral argument, and result in lengthy written opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and of any concurring and dissenting justices.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket
They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides.
Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been more beneficial than harmful.
Also, the current administration doesn't care much about the law but what Trump and his people like and dislike. They made it very clear that they don't like Anthropic, so they won't get any contracts now, this ruling doesn't really matter until Trump is out of office.
None of this provable, of course.
They even fired people for investigating the storm on the Capitol. The message was pretty clear: we don't care about the law or what your job is, if you do something we dislike we retaliate, so you better become corrupt and stop caring as well or quit now on your own terms.
(sarcasm intended)
Law firms blackmailed into doing pro bono work for Trump's pet causes, intelligence analysts not able to tell the truth, energy companies giving up wind leases and switching to fossil fuels. And of course the constant shakedowns for cash.
In his recent interview Emil Michael (DoW undersecretary, "AI czar") even mentions that the Anthropic case served as motivation for Google folding.
It is a shame that Google's leadership is so spineless. On the minuscule off-chance any of those VPs are reading HN - you are bad and you should feel shame for increasing x-risk for a percentage point of profit.
Can it be at all lawful to retaliate though?
Prevent everyone from doing it or don't prevent anyone. You can't single out and cripple only one country.
I don't imagine that this was Anthropic's intent anyway. They were just trying to say that it shouldn't be used for warfare. Respectable, but short sighted considering that they couldn't stop other people from using it for that same purpose.
The 'national security risk' is imaginary and exists solely in the minds of the government morons in charge of AI policy
Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.