Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Blacklisting of Anthropic Was Illegal
jbegley · 240 points · 106 comments · 5 jam yang lalu · Open original
Comments
5 preview comments · loading full thread
Log in to use comments
Log in to h4cker, then connect Hacker News to publish comments.
BUbushido5 jam yang lalu
It was a master stroke in international politics though, the US created an arms race towards sovereign ai, small models, and self-hosting - exactly like they wanted to.
(sarcasm intended)
FIfirefoxd5 jam yang lalu
The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.
ARArubis4 jam yang lalu
Judge rules horse must return to barn.
FRfrog424 jam yang lalu
So can they now sue the government and recoup their inflated theoretical losses to be paid out of tax revenue? It feels like any outcome here will have no negative effect on the major players actually involved.
HIhingler364 jam yang lalu
At this point, does precedent even matter? Based on recent rulings, I feel like this exact scenario could play out again and the result would be the exact same.
Comments
5 preview comments · loading full threadLog in to h4cker, then connect Hacker News to publish comments.
It was a master stroke in international politics though, the US created an arms race towards sovereign ai, small models, and self-hosting - exactly like they wanted to. (sarcasm intended)
The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.
Judge rules horse must return to barn.
So can they now sue the government and recoup their inflated theoretical losses to be paid out of tax revenue? It feels like any outcome here will have no negative effect on the major players actually involved.
At this point, does precedent even matter? Based on recent rulings, I feel like this exact scenario could play out again and the result would be the exact same.