If the government thinks the terms of Anthropic are unacceptable, they can just stop using them, right?
But why would you then retaliate and ban other companies from making business with Anthropic if they want to be a defense contractor?
How do these requirements make Anthropic a supply chain risk that makes them unusable for use by other companies?
> If the government thinks the terms of Anthropic are unacceptable, they can just stop using them, right
That is what they are doing.
> why would you then [....] ban other companies from making business with Anthropic if they want to be a defense contractor
Because, if it shops with Anthropic code, the DoD becomes subject to the restrictions when they receive the contractor's product. Anthropic's limitation is on the use, not (just) on the product or distribution.
To stop using them requires making the suppliers still using them as well.
> Because, if it shops with Anthropic code, the DoD becomes subject to the restrictions when they receive the contractor's product. Anthropic's limitation is on the use, not (just) on the product or distribution.
How does that work? If the contractor uses Anthropic to make some slides and write a report, the DoD can’t use the contractors stuff however they want?
It's perfectly reasonable for the US government to end the contract if they no longer like the terms they agreed to (assuming the contract does in fact let them); it's not reasonable to destroy the counterparty to the contract in retaliation. The line "I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it further" is literally spoken by Darth Vader, the most comic-book of comic-book villains.
This is nice rhetoric but ignores the fact that the elected officials are bought out by other billionaires. The US is an oligarchy in a republics clothing.
One advantage of AI-generated copy is it generally doesn't make mistakes like this.
The only mistake I've noticed, besides inexplicably lapsing into Chinese mid-sentence, is parallel construction errors, like "This product is fast, lightweight, and won't break the bank!"
The first two of the three are adjectives, each connected to the subject by the one "is," and the third is a verb phrase not using the "is." Ideally they'd be all adjectives using the "is," or all phrases supplying their own verbs.
Not the worst error in the world, but it stands out in LLM text that is otherwise remarkably nit-free.
(We have descended into one of the deeper circles of grammar hell. I will remind you that you're free to leave at any time.)
Yes, exactly. English grammar actually doesn't require the "and" to end a list (leaving it out is called "asyndeton" if you're curious). A good example is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
So after all this, there actually is a way to analyze the example that is strictly valid. But most people would look askance at the standalone sentence "This product is fast, lightweight." That is, I suppose, unless someone like Abraham Lincoln worked it into his next speech.
It is much more convenient to catch the fish that eats particular sort of worms putting such worm on a hook than finding the right fish among many others in a fishnet.
> What prevents Microsoft from mandating removal of enrollment permissions for user keychains and Secure Boot toggle, hence every Linux distribution has to go through Microsoft's blessing to be bootable?
Why are you buying hardware that Microsoft controls if you're concerned about this?
AFAIU (I haven't looked much into it) shim basically exists so that MS signs the shim once (or only a few times when updated), which has the distro public key embedded, which does further verification of the chain (bootloader/kernel) which gets updated more frequently.
That's basically my understanding too. But since you can still boot any shim-supported distro, Secure Boot + shim practically gains you nothing. An adversary can simply boot their own own copy of shim with whatever OS they like.
I don't know all the ins and outs, but because of the Machine Owner Key (MOK) mechanism in shim, it should be possible to boot arbitrary OSes without MS signing anything.
Your step of removing the MS keys works of course :) Although I've heard that can be risky on various systems that need to load MS-signed EEPROMS. Also I think that firmware updates can be problematic?
> Although I've heard that can be risky on various systems that need to load MS-signed EEPROMS
Yea, I bricked a Gigabyte board and still haven't been able to fix it. I just replaced it with an Asrock board and that has settings for what to do with option-rom when secureboot is enabled (always execute, always deny, allow execute, defer execute, deny execute and query user) and I have no clue what half of them specifically do (like, does "allow execute" only execute if a matching key exists and doesn't execute if it doesn't? and what is the difference between "always deny" and "deny execute"? and defer to when??). But I just set it to always execute and my problem is solved.
It is an interesting point. What's the difference between this use license and others?
reply