Pete Hegseth has threatened to cancel $200m contract unless it is given unfettered access to Claude model
Anthropic said Thursday it “cannot in good conscience” comply with a demand from the Pentagon to remove safety precautions from its artificial intelligence model and grant the US military unfettered access to its AI capabilities.
The Department of Defense had threatened to cancel a $200m contract and deem Anthropic a “supply chain risk”, a designation with serious financial implications, if the company did not comply with the request by Friday.
Chief executive Dario Amodei said in a statement that the threats from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, would not change the company’s position, and that he hoped Hegseth would “reconsider”.
USA has absolutely zero respect for the rights of people in or from other countries.
This was also evident in how Obama explained the “balance” of US surveillance.
It is also evident in how USA spies on allied top politicians. The might makes right mentality in USA is disgusting.
Your statement isn’t wrong, but you could substitute any powerful nation in the place of “USA” today or throughout history and the statement would be correct too. Geopolitics is really really ugly if you peal back the thin veneers of soft power and diplomacy on top.
There are degrees of disrespect, and I would argue that every single EU country has higher respect, also because to be in EU it is a requirement to observe human rights.
Disrespecting the rights of people even if they aren’t of your own nationality, is contrary to democratic values.
You may be thinking China and Russia are just as bad or maybe even worse, but that isn’t the pattern you should be looking at, you should compare with other democracies, and especially countries that have better democracy than USA.
Geopolitically you’re cherry picking from a time when nations of the EU are not as powerful globally. When Germany was powerful, look how they treated the Poles. When Belgium was powerful look at it treated the people of Central Africa (Congo). Spain, at the height of its power, treated the Aztec and other nations in the Caribbean with zero respect.
That is part of the diplomatic veneer. Yes, its an ideal, but it will be discarded when geopolitically necessary. How many boats of migrants have drowned off the coast of Italy or Greece? Are diplomats and citizens of Israel still allowed free movement in the EU with its treatment of those in Gaza?
Keep in mind, I’m not criticizing the EU. I recognize the really ugly realities that come with geopolitics and the choices that national leaders make to serve the interests of their citizens, even with it conflicts with their own ideals.
Comparing “degrees of disrespect” is ignoring geopolitical realities. If you want to have a conversation about ideals humanity should adopt we will likely agree on most of the points of the discussion, but understand national leaders will (when push comes to shove) ignore all of it and do what they think is best for their nation no matter the cost to other nations.
Also, none of this is a defense of the actions of China, Russia, or the USA. Its a recognition that powerful nations do these things when it serves their interests.
Those examples are straw-men, because before WW2 human rights were not a thing. In the stone age people hit each other with clubs doesn’t prove anything.
I’m very very confused. You…don’t think the concept of human rights existed before 1939 (or 1945)?
They were not a thing like they are today, where most democracies strive to observe human rights.
For instance it wouldn’t make much sense for a government to claim to be for human rights while they extort colonies.
And human rights have always been a thing only respected by democracies. But nowhere as much as in EU where it is a requirement.
I disagree with your statement.
Do I need to point to obvious examples such as the US Declaration of Independence in 1776?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Even ancient Rome had a number of things legally protected that we call “human rights” today. I think you’re conveniently cherry picking conditions and a time to make your statement true ignoring history. You’re welcome to do that, but I believe that’s intellectually dishonest. You’re free to your opinion and your position though, so I’ll leave you to it. Thank you for conversing up to now. I hope you have a great day.
You are only proving my point, this was from when USA was created as a democracy.
Except for slaves and women, so no that is not a declaration of respect for human rights as we understand them today. But it was a start.
But even if the meaning was good, USA no-longer respect the values of democracy. Many other democracies do.
Almost like it is a whole bunch of people who consider rape an extension of power looking at how they can put themselves atop the pyramid.
Rape as a method of power is a tiny tiny tiny part/tool of geopolitics at the nation state level. Almost too small mention. The same original statement is the rationale for colonization of the Carrebean/Americas/Africa by European powers in the 15th century and beyond as just an example.
I know I know but just for the people in the back who can’t get the complexity of a system that incentivizes infighting of other countries to reduce their population numbers willingly by enslaving and weakening their outward defenses till they can be sacked for anything left of value after their people are gone and used as labor…
Raping children still looks pretty bad and is real simple to realize that as a bargaining and power ritual of the wealthy/ruling, maybe the complicated stuff they do is horrible too.
As an American, it has always been obvious to me that the government thinks rights are only for people in the country. Snoden’s whistle blowing made it clear that it isn’t just US. Lots of other countries act the same way, and the US government is using that to allow them to spy domestically too.
we use definite articles