folocitoan

>The Department reasonably feared that Anthropic might manipulate Claude’s design to prevent it from performing national-security functions that the Department deems contractually authorized and necessary (emphasis mine)

They didn't "reasonably" fear anything. There is absolutely no evidence to support these allegations. Anthropic has the right to impose licensing terms. Merely disagreeing with the government is not evidence of wrongdoing.

If Anthropic wasn't allowed to say what they said, how would they be allowed to object to their government's illegal use of their products at all? It sounds to me like their only choices were "shut up" or "be punished", which is a clear-cut violation of their rights.

>The DOD didn’t ban private citizens from using Anthropic.

They absolutely did. If a product is designated a supply chain risk, no one is allowed to use it anywhere in the DoD's supply chain.

Here on planet Earth, what happened is that Anthropic imposed licensing terms. The DoD is free to reject those terms. But that is not evidence that Anthropic is planning to harm the US military by sabotaging its products. There is no evidence that Anthropic changed, or planned to change, the design of its system to work against the US military following its dispute with the DoD. Zip zero nada. Never happened. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

>To add onto what another commenter said, the pen analogy would be more like the manufacturer designing pens that stopped working when used to sign strike orders they disagreed with.

The pen analogy would be more like the manufacturer selling pens that work just fine under all circumstances but that the military starts using in hand-to-hand combat.

I don't care what word we use. I'm interested in whether or not we have clear evidence the animals find it upsetting. And if so, is it upsetting in the way my cat finds taking her medication upsetting, or it is upsetting in the way humans find rape upsetting? Just having to hold the animal proves little.