Most active commenters
  • otterley(5)

←back to thread

Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

(www.semafor.com)
223 points mindingnever | 16 comments | 17 Sep 25 17:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.004s | source | bottom
Show context
LeoPanthera ◴[17 Sep 25 18:48 UTC] No.45279813[source]▶
One of the very few tech companies who have refused to bend the knee to the United States' current dictatorial government.
replies(6): >>45279971 #>>45280299 #>>45280588 #>>45280690 #>>45280806 #>>45281162 #
FortuneIIIPick ◴[17 Sep 25 19:49 UTC] No.45280588[source]▶
Dictatorial suggests a "ruler with total power". The US has three branches of government. That hasn't changed, ever.
replies(4): >>45280643 #>>45280775 #>>45280818 #>>45285314 #
vkou ◴[17 Sep 25 19:54 UTC] No.45280643[source]▶
Two of them jump at the command one the other one, one out of fear (because he has ended the careers of every rep that has crossed him), and the other has been packed with life-time-appointment sycophants who put loyalty to the cut over anything else.

Russia (or literally any other dictatorial tyre pyre) also has three branches of government and a token opposition, for all the good it does.

Just because you have a nice piece of paper that outlines some kind of de jure separation of powers, doesn't mean shit in practice. Russia (and prior to it, the USSR) has no shortage of such pieces of paper.

replies(1): >>45280704 #
1. FortuneIIIPick ◴[17 Sep 25 20:03 UTC] No.45280704[source]▶
That's a ridiculous take. Seriously outlandish. The US has always had and continues to have three working branches of government. That is a factual statement because it is indeed a fact.
replies(4): >>45280769 #>>45280938 #>>45281002 #>>45281009 #
2. otterley ◴[17 Sep 25 20:08 UTC] No.45280769[source]▶
It’s not a fact, because it depends upon a subjective interpretation of the word “working.” Some might argue, for example, that if the President can cow Congress into subservience, then the three branches of government are no longer in balance with each other, and thus the constitution is no longer “working” as intended.
replies(2): >>45280837 #>>45281870 #
3. mjparrott ◴[17 Sep 25 20:14 UTC] No.45280837[source]▶
It can be true that the constitution is not working as intended, AND the US is a far cry from a country like Russian in terms of it operating as a constitutional republic / democracy. It is not subjective to say the US is more of a democratic country than Russia.
replies(2): >>45281033 #>>45281671 #
4. mrbombastic ◴[17 Sep 25 20:23 UTC] No.45280938[source]▶
The power of the purse is currently being usurped by the executive branch with no pushback from a republican congress, armed forces are being deployed to American cities, media corporations are being forced to have admin installed bias police, due process is a joke, museums are being forced to remove information the admin find objectionable. You can bury your head in the sand if you like but there are plenty of us who won’t.
5. chankstein38 ◴[17 Sep 25 20:29 UTC] No.45281002[source]▶
I always think it's funny how people who have strong opinions based on nothing love to out themselves by just repeating that something is fact. clap clap We're all convinced, for sure! ;)
replies(1): >>45281013 #
6. ricardobeat ◴[17 Sep 25 20:30 UTC] No.45281009[source]▶
How do you explain Trump unilaterally renaming the Ministry of Defense, without legislative approval? Is it a “working branch” if their constitutionally granted power is easily sidestepped?
replies(3): >>45281044 #>>45281885 #>>45283276 #
7. otterley ◴[17 Sep 25 20:30 UTC] No.45281013[source]▶
It's straight out of Charlie Kirk's playbook.
8. otterley ◴[17 Sep 25 20:32 UTC] No.45281033{3}[source]▶
I think Russia was being used as an extreme example. It wasn't being lauded as a model nation, far from it.
replies(1): >>45281553 #
9. otterley ◴[17 Sep 25 20:33 UTC] No.45281044[source]▶
Do you mean the Department of Defense? The U.S. doesn't have ministries.
10. curt15 ◴[17 Sep 25 21:22 UTC] No.45281553{4}[source]▶
Maybe not yet, but the current US president has lauded authoritarian Hungary as a model for the US.
11. vkou ◴[17 Sep 25 21:35 UTC] No.45281671{3}[source]▶
Rome wasn't built in a day, you don't go straight from 2024 to throwing people out of windows overnight.

But you get there by doing exactly what's being done on a daily basis.

12. terminalshort ◴[17 Sep 25 21:58 UTC] No.45281870[source]▶
Depends on how he cows them into subservience. If he uses the threat of electoral defeat for opposing him, that's totally legitimate. If he uses his position as commander in chief to threaten them with force, that's different.
replies(2): >>45284491 #>>45284543 #
13. terminalshort ◴[17 Sep 25 21:59 UTC] No.45281885[source]▶
I couldn't care less because it has always been and always will be the department of war whether or not the letterhead says "Department of Defense."
14. nickthegreek ◴[18 Sep 25 00:26 UTC] No.45283276[source]▶
the dod was not officially renamed to the dow. that would take an act of congress. he gave it a secondary title.
15. ◴[18 Sep 25 02:35 UTC] No.45284491{3}[source]▶
16. otterley ◴[18 Sep 25 02:40 UTC] No.45284543{3}[source]▶
It does not matter how. The fact that he is able to do it at all illustrates a design weakness. Until recently, Presidents chose (consciously or otherwise) not to exploit that weakness. It doesn’t mean the weakness wasn’t always there.