Pete Hegseth has threatened to cancel $200m contract unless it is given unfettered access to Claude model
Anthropic said Thursday it “cannot in good conscience” comply with a demand from the Pentagon to remove safety precautions from its artificial intelligence model and grant the US military unfettered access to its AI capabilities.
The Department of Defense had threatened to cancel a $200m contract and deem Anthropic a “supply chain risk”, a designation with serious financial implications, if the company did not comply with the request by Friday.
Chief executive Dario Amodei said in a statement that the threats from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, would not change the company’s position, and that he hoped Hegseth would “reconsider”.
There are degrees of disrespect, and I would argue that every single EU country has higher respect, also because to be in EU it is a requirement to observe human rights.
Disrespecting the rights of people even if they aren’t of your own nationality, is contrary to democratic values.
You may be thinking China and Russia are just as bad or maybe even worse, but that isn’t the pattern you should be looking at, you should compare with other democracies, and especially countries that have better democracy than USA.
Geopolitically you’re cherry picking from a time when nations of the EU are not as powerful globally. When Germany was powerful, look how they treated the Poles. When Belgium was powerful look at it treated the people of Central Africa (Congo). Spain, at the height of its power, treated the Aztec and other nations in the Caribbean with zero respect.
That is part of the diplomatic veneer. Yes, its an ideal, but it will be discarded when geopolitically necessary. How many boats of migrants have drowned off the coast of Italy or Greece? Are diplomats and citizens of Israel still allowed free movement in the EU with its treatment of those in Gaza?
Keep in mind, I’m not criticizing the EU. I recognize the really ugly realities that come with geopolitics and the choices that national leaders make to serve the interests of their citizens, even with it conflicts with their own ideals.
Comparing “degrees of disrespect” is ignoring geopolitical realities. If you want to have a conversation about ideals humanity should adopt we will likely agree on most of the points of the discussion, but understand national leaders will (when push comes to shove) ignore all of it and do what they think is best for their nation no matter the cost to other nations.
Also, none of this is a defense of the actions of China, Russia, or the USA. Its a recognition that powerful nations do these things when it serves their interests.
Those examples are straw-men, because before WW2 human rights were not a thing. In the stone age people hit each other with clubs doesn’t prove anything.
I’m very very confused. You…don’t think the concept of human rights existed before 1939 (or 1945)?
They were not a thing like they are today, where most democracies strive to observe human rights.
For instance it wouldn’t make much sense for a government to claim to be for human rights while they extort colonies.