Why do you think Anthropic supports disinformation campaigns? Their universal usage standards also include prohibitions against creating & spreading misinformation and undermining democratic processes:
Do Not Create or Spread Misinformation:
This includes using our products or services to:
Create or disseminate deceptive or misleading information about, or with the intention of targeting, a group, entity or person
Create or disseminate deceptive or misleading information about laws, regulations, procedures, practices, standards established by an institution, entity or governing body
Create or disseminate conspiratorial narratives meant to target a specific group, individual or entity
Impersonate real entities or create fake personas to falsely attribute content or mislead others about its origin without consent or legal right
Provide false or misleading information related to medical, health or science issues
Do Not Undermine Democratic Processes or Engage in Targeted Campaign Activities:
This includes using our products or services to:
Engage in personalized vote or campaign targeting based on individual profiles or data
Create artificial or deceptive political movements in which the source, scale or nature of the campaign or activities is misrepresented
Generate automated communications to public officials or voters at scale that conceal their artificial origin, or engage in systematic vote solicitation that could undermine election integrity
Create political content designed to deceive or mislead voters, including synthetic media of political figures
Generate or disseminate false or misleading information in political and electoral contexts, including about candidates, parties, policies, voting procedures, or election security
Engage in political lobbying or grassroots advocacy using false or fabricated information, or create lobbying or advocacy materials containing demonstrably false claims about facts, data, or events
Incite, glorify or facilitate the disruption of electoral or civic processes, including interference with voting systems, vote counting, or certification processes
Create content designed to suppress voter turnout or discourage legitimate political participation through deception or intimidation
Please provide more context in these kinds of posts, because as far as I can tell your complaint is simply based on an incorrect assumption.
Anthropic has secret agreements with the United States military that it can use it’s models in ways that can violate the universal usage standards. There’s currently the Exceptions to our Usage Policy policy, that clarifies that there those secret agreements.
Currently, the United States military seemed to be unhappy with some aspects and there’s a conflict between the Department of War and Anthropic. In that conflict Anthropic argues that it’s red lines are:
These include involvement in autonomous kinetic operations in which AI tools make final military targeting decisions without human intervention.
The use of Anthropic tools for mass domestic surveillance constitutes another red line, the source said.
There are also other articles that claim that those two are the red lines that Anthropic has set in it’s relationship with the military. The term red line suggest that they are willing to give up things that aren’t red lines.
The term red line suggest that they are willing to give up things that aren’t red lines.
This is very different from the term “red line” meaning they are “okay” with anything that isn’t a “red line”. Obviously there exist compromises Anthropic is willing to make in the service of US national interest. That is different from disinformation campaigns in particular being among those compromises.
Further, in the exceptions to the usage policy (which you link) Anthropic states explicitly
For example, with carefully selected government entities, we may allow foreign intelligence analysis in accordance with applicable law. All other use restrictions in our Usage Policy, including those prohibiting use for disinformation campaigns, the design or use of weapons, censorship, domestic surveillance, and malicious cyber operations, remain.
(bolding my own)
This paragraph is somewhat difficult to read, but I read this as stating that even given exceptions to their general usage policy given to government entities, the listed prohibitions would remain in place, which notably do include your disinformation campaigns.
The key aspect of that paragraph is “for example”. If I’m saying “For example, on Wednesdays I’m not beating my wife”, that’s no claim that I’m not beating my wife in general.
The document lays out that there’s are secret agreements that are made that negotiate expectations and that there’s one of those secret agreements where the usage of disinformation campaigns is ruled out. It does not state that it’s ruled out in all agreements.
Obviously there exist compromises Anthropic is willing to make in the service of US national interest.
Yes, and given the red lines they communicate that compromise seems to involve allowing disinformation campaigns but not allowing domestic surveillance and autonomous decision to kill people.
Why do you think Anthropic supports disinformation campaigns? Their universal usage standards also include prohibitions against creating & spreading misinformation and undermining democratic processes:
Please provide more context in these kinds of posts, because as far as I can tell your complaint is simply based on an incorrect assumption.
Anthropic has secret agreements with the United States military that it can use it’s models in ways that can violate the universal usage standards. There’s currently the Exceptions to our Usage Policy policy, that clarifies that there those secret agreements.
Currently, the United States military seemed to be unhappy with some aspects and there’s a conflict between the Department of War and Anthropic. In that conflict Anthropic argues that it’s red lines are:
There are also other articles that claim that those two are the red lines that Anthropic has set in it’s relationship with the military. The term red line suggest that they are willing to give up things that aren’t red lines.
This is very different from the term “red line” meaning they are “okay” with anything that isn’t a “red line”. Obviously there exist compromises Anthropic is willing to make in the service of US national interest. That is different from disinformation campaigns in particular being among those compromises.
Further, in the exceptions to the usage policy (which you link) Anthropic states explicitly
(bolding my own)
This paragraph is somewhat difficult to read, but I read this as stating that even given exceptions to their general usage policy given to government entities, the listed prohibitions would remain in place, which notably do include your disinformation campaigns.
The key aspect of that paragraph is “for example”. If I’m saying “For example, on Wednesdays I’m not beating my wife”, that’s no claim that I’m not beating my wife in general.
The document lays out that there’s are secret agreements that are made that negotiate expectations and that there’s one of those secret agreements where the usage of disinformation campaigns is ruled out. It does not state that it’s ruled out in all agreements.
Yes, and given the red lines they communicate that compromise seems to involve allowing disinformation campaigns but not allowing domestic surveillance and autonomous decision to kill people.