* Anthropic accepted a 200M contract from the US Department of Defence
* Anthropic seeked contracts from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the leaked memo acknowledges that the contracts will enrich dictators
* Anthropic spent more than 2 millions of political lobying in 2025
* "Unfortunately, I think ‘No bad person should ever benefit from our success’ is a pretty difficult principle to run a business on."
I don't see how this new constitution is anything more than marketing, when "enriching dictators is better than going out of business" is your CEO's motto, "lets to the lest evil thing that sill gives us more power and money" is not new, and its not gonna fix anything. When the economic system is fucked, only a reimagining of the system can fix it. Good intentions cannot meaningfully change anything when comming from actors that operate from within the fucked system, and who pay millions to fuck it further
Hi, i don't often reply to attacks of character but judging by your comment history you have a habit to leave a lot of them, i would probably be a bad president tho, because i don't think its possible to be good at running a bad system, and because i don't think its a good thing for a single person to "run a country".
I don't think my concerns over over Anthropic's honesty should be dismissed based on your perception on my capacity at doing something else.
I also don't see how DoD contracts help Anthropic's goal of "avoiding actions that are inappropriately dangerous or harmful", i also don't see the practical use of a constitution that doesn't see the contradiction. I will not answer to your following comments because you don't seem to be a nice person, goodbye.
Today, we take the term "open source" for granted, but this wasn't always the case. There wasn't a single, universally accepted term to describe software that was freely shareable. "Free software" was one of the terms used, but it wasn't clear to non-programmers how this was different from proprietary software that was downloadable without having to pay for it. If you're not a programmer anyway, how should one type of "free software" be different from another?
Proponents of what we now call "open source" wanted to distinguish between two senses of the word "free". One sense is not having to pay for something, as in "Come over to my party, the beer is free." Anther sense is "I can criticize the government, because the country I live in is free." People in the free software and open source movement began to phrase the dichotomy in these terms to illustrate how one sense of the word "free" is much more important than the other. The fact that you don't have to pay for some piece of software is nice, but what's more important is that you aren't beholden to the company that developed it.
I would have rather read an article about the best ways to create positive change in a capitalist system, a critique of socialism, Marxism, or anarchism, even if it was filled with words i didn't understand, than an article arguing about individual intent, and ignoring systemic design.
I think there is a big problem around "man things" and "girl things" that has cost a lot to society, the women scientists who thought it wasn't for them, the men teachers and nurses who thought the same, and all the knowledge kept from people seen as being the wrong gender for it (cooking, cleaning, car repair ...) and i think the solution and a necessary step for the advancement of humanity is the recognition that the importance of sex is overinflated in society, and that a lot of things attributed to sex are actually social constructs, like gender.
In other words i think a post gender society would allow the distribution of occupations and knowledge to better match the populations skills and interest and children having access to better mentors.
yes i remember Contrapoins patreon only video about "mommy and daddy politics" where she says conservatives imagine the government as a patriarchal father figure
Big News : company who'se competition makes money from traffic thinks traffic should be free
I'm always fascinated by companies capacity to make deregulation the answer to every problem, included deregulation.
Neoliberalism never fails to make me cringe, the idea that any value comes as a direct consequence of the business model is not surprising coming from tech companies but still.
> So how will the business model work? [...] Imagine a future business model of the Internet that doesn't reward traffic-generating [...] but instead rewards those content creators [...]. That will involve some portion of the subscription fees AI companies collect, and some portion of the revenue from the ads they'll inevitably serve, going back to content creators ...
This isn't revolutionary and won't remove the biggest issues with the internet, This is basically how youtube remunerates content creators, that counts AI using your data as a "view" or remunerable unit of consumption.
AI companies will never agree to remunerate anyone without a fight. They spent billions on their AI models and want ROI.
Remember how youtube demonetises content with not 'advertiser friendly' content ? is that how the whole internet works now ? can i get removed from the internet if Trump affiliated CEOs hate me ?
> Our conversations with the leading AI companies nearly all acknowledge that they have a responsibility to give back to the ecosystem and compensate content creators. Confirming this, the largest publishers are reporting they're having much more constructive conversations about licensing their content to those AI companies.
So, pretty transparently, you make content, that content is owned by a publisher, that publisher gives that content to an AI company, the AI company pays back the publisher (how things already work so far), and then the publisher aggrees to give some of it back to the creators. How does cloudflare plan to promise this ? they mention "collaboration" so non binding agreements, as i assume OpenAI won't agree to pay fines to cloudflare for not paying you the 20 bucks you think you deserve for your content.
At no point do they even entertain the idea that you should be remunerated based on how often AI serves your content, or that this remuneration should be mendatory.
This letter would create incredible opportunities for censorship and abuse. Just a few days after Trump makes companies pull Jimmy and Stephen, Cloudflare propose a new internet, controlled by them, centralized in america, where Trump, or any future president could just order Wikipedia to be removed or demonetized. No thanks
reply