←back to thread

Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

(www.semafor.com)
223 points mindingnever | 1 comments | 17 Sep 25 17:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
impossiblefork ◴[17 Sep 25 18:48 UTC] No.45279816[source]▶
Very strange writing from semafor.com

>For instance, an agency could pay for a subscription or negotiate a pay-per-use contract with an AI provider, only to find out that it is prohibited from using the AI model in certain ways, limiting its value.

This is of course quite false. They of course know the restriction when they sign the contract.

replies(5): >>45280028 #>>45280048 #>>45280152 #>>45280390 #>>45280820 #
jdminhbg ◴[17 Sep 25 19:07 UTC] No.45280048[source]▶
Are you sure that every restriction that’s in the model is also spelled out in the contract? If they add new ones, do they update the contract?
replies(2): >>45280148 #>>45281208 #
mikeyouse ◴[17 Sep 25 19:13 UTC] No.45280148[source]▶
The contracts will usually say “You agree to the restrictions in our TOS” with a link to that page which allows for them to update the TOS without new signatures.
replies(2): >>45280306 #>>45280795 #
giancarlostoro ◴[17 Sep 25 19:26 UTC] No.45280306[source]▶
Usually, contracts will note that you will be notified of changes ahead of time, if it's a good faith contract and company that is.
replies(1): >>45280372 #
impossiblefork ◴[17 Sep 25 19:31 UTC] No.45280372[source]▶
Here in Sweden contracts are a specific thing, otherwise it's not a contract, so agreeing to conditions that can be changed by the other party simply isn't a contract and therefore is just a bullshit paper of very dubious legal validity.

I know that some things like this are accepted in America, and I can't judge how it would be dealt with. I assume that contracts between companies and other sophisticated entities are actual contracts with unchangeable terms.

replies(2): >>45280644 #>>45281893 #
mindcrime ◴[17 Sep 25 19:54 UTC] No.45280644[source]▶
I know that some things like this are accepted in America

Not really. Everything you said about contracts above applies to contracts in America last time I checked. Disclaimer: IANAL, my legal training amounts of 1 semester of "Business Law" in college.

replies(1): >>45280951 #
impossiblefork ◴[17 Sep 25 20:24 UTC] No.45280951[source]▶
In theory yes, but you also have this stuff where people agree to get medical treatment and the price isn't specified.

This would be a non-contract in Swedish law, for example.

replies(2): >>45282343 #>>45283107 #
1. adastra22 ◴[17 Sep 25 22:45 UTC] No.45282343[source]▶
It is also illegal in USA, although that only changed recently.