noahbp

You seem to be misunderstanding the facts. Claude was already used by the US Military, under an existing contract between Anthropic and the US Department of War.

The core dispute was the US Military deciding it needed to renegotiate this contract, but without Anthropic's two red lines: No fully autonomous weapons (i.e., zero humans in the loop), and no mass domestic surveillance.

>As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.

This is not at all what happened. The existing contract that Anthropic had with the government had two red lines: No autonomous weapons (i.e., do not build Skynet with Claude), and no mass domestic surveillance.

Anthropic did not, and does not want, any case-by-case veto power over the US Military's use of their AI models. The red lines were negotiated ahead of time.

No one wanted case-by-case veto ability at Anthropic. The red lines were made clear ahead of time: No use of Anthropic models for autonomous weapons (Skynet) or mass-domestic surveillance, negotiated in the agreement.

OpenAI, xAI, and Google happily agreed to DoW contracts which allow both of those use cases.

I have attempted to report numerous errors in your Chat UI, but you seem to have decided that customer input is undesired, as you have an AI support system that ignores my problem and refuses to escalate to anyone or create a ticket.

To this day, your in-chat “Report an Issue” button still does not work consistently, and I am still billed for empty responses from many image providers.

To paraphrase patio11, a disagreement between you and the market is not a shortage.

I'm surprised that anyone still believes the perennial "labor shortage" complaints. It has always been about employers refusing to improve wages and working conditions.

Because the sellers are categorizing them as computers on ebay and filling in all of the appropriate specifications as if it was the computer, and only putting in the description "CASE ONLY, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY COMPUTER PARTS".

>Maybe this is less true in LLM land, but certainly it was right before

I disagree:

I was tasked with rewriting a Python application in ucode for use on OpenWRT. It's a low-resource and dynamic language, and sufficiently JavaScript-like that Opus 4.8 couldn't write code without errors that were obvious with my LSP. The interpreter errors were often reported with the the correct line and column numbers, but with the incorrect code and a vague error message. I had to ask it to use my LSP and fix the warnings and errors, which led to it fixing a few dozen bugs.

Just the other day, Fable 5.1 still wrote a lot of code in Rust that had compiler errors. While I'm sure it could have fixed these errors if the Rust compiler also reported incorrect line numbers, columns, code, with a vague error message to boot, I saved a substantial amount of time and tokens because its error reporting is so comprehensive.

Specific and accurate error message reporting will always have the same high value that it does today. Error messages are far cheaper to generate than tokens.