The raid on Venezula and the strikes on Iran were some of the first military operations that didn't leak to the media that I can remember (with the exception of the Bin Laden raid I can't think of another big one during my lifetime?).
Both happened after they kicked journalists out of the Pentagon and I have to think that it played at least some role in the secrecy.
The earlier strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities before the change were leaked, though not the details of the mission, just that they were happening.
That's inaccurate. Several journalists had both advance and real-time knowledge of the raid on Venezuela, but chose to hold off on reporting out of journalistic ethics. [0]
Given the detail and depth of reporting into the initial strikes on Iran that emerged very shortly after, I would expect the same was true in that case too.
Banning journalists from the Pentagon doesn't prevent them from getting scoops and being leaked to. That was always a false justification for this move.
It's also unlocking economic value that was impossible to realize in the old model. If you're sitting around your house with nothing to do for an hour you can now earn money in ways you couldn't before.
Fungibility means anything can be framed as economic value. Prisoner labour is also unlocking economic value, as is child labour.
Also who are these non-theoretical people who in this economy can afford to sit around but are suddenly economically motivated by gig economy offerings?
A laughable concept; absurd on its face. Just like the idea that uber is just suburban mums taking one or two trips on the way back from school.
It will absolutely be a full time, below minimum wage job that desperate people do. The same as uber, delivery drivers, and the entire rest of the gig economy
When people think of automation I'm assuming their thinking of the financial statements (balance sheet, income, cash flows, equity).
Reporting also contains narrative explanations by management of: the company's financial health, updates on any new or existing market risks and the company's strategy to deal with them, any changes to controls or accounting procedures, updates on any new or existing litigation, and more.
These reports need to be certified for truth by the CEO, CFO, and relevant officers under penalty of 10+ years in jail and millions of dollars in fines personally.
It's also common to do a press release, earnings call, and investor presentation but those aren't required.
I meant just closing the financial records, not coming up with the shareholder marketing. It can take a month just to find out if you "made" the quarter or not, mostly because accounting and finance is combing through every line item to see if they can recategorize it in a way that makes the numbers look better but doesn't result in them going to jail
In what should be a very black and white line of work there is a ton of judgement and negotiation involved
small business is the majority of employment. Think of an indi-coffee shop, the person taking your order may very well be the ceo technically. So there's a lot of "top executives".
I've found it surprising how pro-Anthropic everyone here has been in this saga.
I assume it's for political reasons because they dislike the current US administration, as all of the government's claims that I've seen have been completely reasonable, and their actions justified.
Resist everything the Trump government does, whether it's good, bad, reasonable, or indifferent, is just a viewpoint that I find shortsighted.
> all of the government's claims that I've seen have been completely reasonable, and their actions justified
you must not be seeing what I'm seeing
refusing to renew Anthropic's contract because Anthropic doesn't want to comply with their terms, would have been reasonable; retaliating by designating them a SCR is not
Anthropic as a whole isn’t perfect, but in this specific scenario they seem to be.
Or, when Anthropic re-iterates “no murder without human approval, no domestic mass surveillance”, why should the government not only change suppliers (free-market), but label Anthropic a “supply-chain risk”?
If you listen to the government officials explain the situation:
All this began after the Maduro raid, when executives from Anthropic allegedly called an intermediary vendor, Palantir, seeking specifics of how their software was used. Because this is classified information, Palantir refused to disclose it, which led to Anthropic threatening to shut off service to Palantir. Palantir reported this to the pentagon who then contacted Anthropic directly.
Obviously, the military can’t have Palantir’s services suddenly stop working mid-operation because one of their suppliers objects to it. So they can’t risk having Claude anywhere in the supply chain.
Assuming the government isn't lying, then the designation is completely and entirely appropriate. You can substitute out any other vendor, and they'd receive the same treatment.
>All this began after the Maduro raid, when executives from Anthropic allegedly called an intermediary vendor, Palantir, seeking specifics of how their software was used....
Let's see if the govt includes these assertions in their reply brief since such a factual record would obviously help their case.
Cancelling Anthropic's contract, and maybe even restricting Anthropic's use as a component to DoD certain contract work might be reasonable.
However, Anthropic's lawsuits are broader than that - partly because the government's actions were broader than that.
* Trump did post a "truth" ordering all Federal agencies to stop using Claude. Anthropic claims that many federal agencies did stop using Claude, and is suing saying that the order is not lawful.
* Hegseth then posted saying that no DoD contractor can work with Anthropic or use Claude at all. This is much broader order than the actual delivered letter which is much narrower - contractors can use Claude, but you can't use Claude as part of your solutions that you deliver to DoD. Anthropic is claiming damages from the difference between the first announcement, and the actual delivered scope, and is also claiming that the actual order did not follow procedures.
* Finally, Anthropic is claiming that the pattern of behaviour by the administration demonstrate that the administration is not simply trying to protect against supply chain risk, but is actively trying to harm Anthropic out of spite.
Frankly, you just have to read Trump's or Hegseth's posts to just get the vibes that this isn't just a technocratic calculation.
> If you sell to the War Department, the CIA, the NSA, or ICE/Border Patrol, you know exactly how it is going to be used.
Yes, you know their use of your services will legally be limited by the contact you both signed.
> This after the fact naiveté by Anthropic is crazy.
The real naiveté here is in the government signing a contract they ended up not liking after all, and in viewers who don't realize that there was a signed contract on place already, which included said restrictions.
> Speaking as a patriot I’d be incredibly proud if my tool was used in a supporting role for one of the most perfect military operations ever executed.
The usage we're talking about is exclusively: mass domestic surveillance of civilians; and fully-autonomous killbots which can (and will) be used against those same civilians. Weird pride to have.
How do you mean exactly? They have clearly stated that they're willing to work with the government without passing their red lines. And Trump is now blackmailing them. How can you interpret their reaction as a shortsighted viewpoint?
At least in their Microsoft contract it means $100 billion in profit, though they don't need to have actually made that money, they just need to show they're on track to do so.
reply