The AI company Anthropic will not agree to let DOD use its AI product for lethal purposes. It's been making headlines.

Can Anthropic refuse? Can the Defense Production Act of 1950 be used to force them to sell their product to DOD for lethal purposes?

Should an American take the position that Anthropic has?

8 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Can Anthropic refuse?

Sure why not.

8 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Can the Defense Production Act of 1950 be used to force them to sell their product to DOD for lethal purposes?

The courts will decide.

9 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Should an American take the position that Anthropic has?

From a corporate view I suspect Amercians do all the time. What gets me is they argue about lethal harm but AI is causing harmful and destructive damage in all kinds of places. Anthropic for instance is accused of causing such harm in the world of music. Call me simple but I am going to guess lack of control (Anthropic was hacked by China were they not?) in this new world of AI any entities AI is going to get used for lethal purposes. The stance could be viewed as admirable by some but what is the real reason behind it?

26 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Sure why not.

Why not?

Should an American company refuse to sell its products or services for use as components of weapons that the agency tasked to defend America needs?

Should Ford motor company have refused to manufacture tanks during WWII?

Should the companies that made the components of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have refused to do so?

Should the government employees working to develop weapon systems refuse to work on such programs?

If there's a line, where do you draw it?

I'm asking, not announcing an opinion.

35 minutes ago, C Culham said:

The courts will decide.

If that's all you've got to say, why post it? Everyvbody knows that in America, a juristocracy. Lawyers ultimately decide all such disputes.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

The AI company Anthropic will not agree to let DOD use its AI product for lethal purposes. It's been making headlines.

Can Anthropic refuse? Can the Defense Production Act of 1950 be used to force them to sell their product to DOD for lethal purposes?

Should an American take the position that Anthropic has?

I think Anthropic has every right to not do business with DOD, if that's what they want to do. However, I don't think you can sell your AI to the DOD and not expect it to be used in ways you never intended. How far is it, really, from using AI to improve the solicitation that buys bombs to using AI to drop those bombs? I don't know. Like you said, Vern, where's the line?

Can DPA force them to sell? I am no expert in DPA, but if a company has behaved in such a way that it is believable that they are a corporate conscientious objector, I'd have a hard time forcing them to do so. But Anthropic has not behaved that way, so I think the Government would probably prevail.

Should Americans take that position? Many do. When I was active duty from 02-06, I worked with a lot of DOD civilians who were against the Iraq war. Ultimately, it is an individual decision. After my AD experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and a few years as a DOD contractor, I decided I didn't want to have anything to do with the DOD,* so I worked in civilian agencies, and still do. It could be that I'm as hypocritical as Anthropic appears to be--it's all the same government right?

*It wasn't just the activities DOD involves itself in, it was also the stifling bureaucracy that pushed me out of DOD.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Why not?

Should an American company refuse to sell its products or services for use as components of weapons that the agency tasked to defend America needs?

Should Ford motor company have refused to manufacture tanks during WWII?

Should the companies that made the components of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have refused to do so?

Should the government employees working to develop weapon systems refuse to work on such programs?

If there's a line, where do you draw it?

I'm asking, not announcing an opinion.

Are you saying efforts related to World War II and the War Powers Act of 1941 provide a premise that Anthropic can not or should not say No? Not strong examples in my view because it is a different era and different circumstances today. Folks are saying no in all kinds of ways to the efforts of the government (Congress and the Executive Branch specifically ) today. And each of the branches are saying no to each other as well in all kinds of ways. The line is politics today and has nothing to do with the survival of a nation in a declared war of yesterday. I wonder what Anthropic would be saying if it was yesterday?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

If that's all you've got to say, why post it? Everybody knows that in America, a juristocracy. Lawyers ultimately decide all such disputes.

Why post your question since "Everybody" knows where its heading anyway or are you saying that posts by individuals in Forum will be the lynch pin where the courts won't have to settle it and Anthropic will simply capitulate? I do not think so because it is more about politics ( have you read statements by several elected representatives that support Anthropic's position?), strength of the presidency and on the flip side corporate philosphy that is ultimately the bottomline and probably much more. As implied by my statement above but stated this way, some people and the entities they represent believe it is necessary and some don't and it is therefore left to adjudication to solve the conflict of DPA's use.

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

Are you saying efforts related to World War II and the War Powers Act of 1941 provide a premise that Anthropic can not or should not say No?

No. I did not say that. I did not make a statement, or offer a proposition, or express an opinion. In fact, I said:

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I'm asking, not announcing an opinion.

What's the matter? Forgot what a question mark looks like?

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

Why post your question since "Everybody" knows where its heading anyway or are you saying that posts by individuals in Forum will be the lynch pin where the courts won't have to settle it and Anthropic will simply capitulate?

If you like, I can recommend a book about how not to write a run-on sentence.

3 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

Can DPA force them to sell? I am no expert in DPA...

Well, Keith, I can't make you and expert on the Defense Production Act of 1950, but I have attached a Congressional Research Service report on it dated 2023 that provides some information.

R43767.13.pdf

And you might want to read FAR Subpart 11.6, Priorities and Allocations, especially 11.602(a), which says, among other things:

(a) Under Title I of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App.2061, et seq.), the President is authorized to require preferential acceptance and performance of contracts and orders supporting certain approved national defense and energy programs and to allocate materials, services, and facilities in such a manner as to promote these approved programs.

You might also want to read 15 CFR Part 700, which says, among other things:

§ 700.13 Acceptance and rejection of rated orders.

(a) Mandatory acceptance.

(1) Except as otherwise specified in this section, a person shall accept every rated order received and must fill such orders regardless of any other rated or unrated orders that have been accepted.

(2) A person shall not discriminate against rated orders in any manner such as by charging higher prices or by imposing different terms and conditions than for comparable unrated orders.

Like it or not, AI is the future of warfighting. Anything that hinders the US in applying it to our defense needs puts the country at a disadvantage. I respect the beliefs and goals of the Amodei brothers and the formation of the Public Benefit Corp which is what the Anthropic organization is, ,but we cannot allow our nation’s hands being tied as we compete with countries like China and Russia. If Anthropic persists in not allowing AI/Claude for lethal purposes, we have to invoke the Defense Production Act.

Does anyone believe China or Russia would allow those kind of restrictions by their own companies?

Vern,

Do you think the DPA could be used to force a Quaker owned textile business to supply uniforms to the DOD? Do you think it is possible that invoking DPA might raise some compelling questions about the nature of freedom, including freedom of speech and worship, and ownership of one's labor?

11 minutes ago, KeithB18 said:

Do you think the DPA could be used to force a Quaker owned textile business to supply uniforms to the DOD?ou want to make this a mor

@KeithB18 See 7 CFR 789.54, Violations, Penalties, and Remedies:

(a) Willful violation of the Defense Production Act, the priorities provisions of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 468), this part, or an official action, is a crime and upon conviction, a person may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalty provided by the Defense Production Act is a $10,000 fine, or 1 year in prison, or both. The maximum penalty provided by the Military Selective Service Act is a $50,000 fine, or 3 years in prison, or both.

(b) The Government may also seek an injunction from a court of appropriate jurisdiction to prohibit the continuance of any violation of, or to enforce compliance with, the Defense Production Act, this part, or an official action.

(c) In order to secure the effective enforcement of the Defense Production Act and other applicable laws, this part, and official actions, certain actions as follows are prohibited:

(1) Soliciting, influencing, or permitting another person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the Defense Production Act and other applicable laws, this part, or an official action.

(2) Conspiring or acting in concert with any other person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the Defense Production Act and other applicable laws, this part, or an official action.

(3) Delivering any item if the person knows or has reason to believe that the item will be accepted, redelivered, held, or used in violation of the Defense Production Act and other applicable laws, this part, or an official action. In such instances, the person must immediately notify USDA that, in accordance with this provision, delivery has not been made.

Now, I'll answer your question with two questions: Would a Quaker do what he or she didn't think was right in order to avoid jail and a fine? I don't know, but I doubt it, even if the penalty were death.

Would a Silicon Valley executive?

Do you think it is possible that invoking. DPA might raise some compelling questions about the nature of freedom, including freedom of speech and worship, and ownership of one's labor?

Yes, just like the Vietnam War draft, in which there was a lot more at stake than jail and a fine. I carried some of the bodies from the battlefield to the helicopters and attended the funerals. Many were for draftees.