this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
501 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

81933 readers
2904 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hacker News.

The Department of War has stated they will only contract with AI companies who accede to “any lawful use” and remove safeguards in the cases mentioned above. They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.

Regardless, these threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.

It is the Department’s prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision. But given the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider. Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters—with our two requested safeguards in place. Should the Department choose to offboard Anthropic, we will work to enable a smooth transition to another provider, avoiding any disruption to ongoing military planning, operations, or other critical missions. Our models will be available on the expansive terms we have proposed for as long as required.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Department of ~~War~~ Defense

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

Fascinating to suggest that it is bold or defiant to affirm that the most destructive, imperialist war machine on the planet is in fact for "defence." "Department of War" is much more honest, and I'm not a fan of how criticisms like this are oriented toward maintaining the purported morality of what is fundamentally a genocidal, globally oppressive institution.

Truly a bot comment.

[–] totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Be that as it may, its name is the Department of Defense, and Trump does not have the legal authority to change that name. Calling it the Department of War, like calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, is a form of giving in to the administration. That is what I am objecting to.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Who fucking cares? Genuinely. Who the absolute fuck cares if he changes the name of a genocidal monstrosity of an organization? On top of that, why the fuck should anyone respect the US legal authority at all? "Gulf of America" is a problem but not "The Grand Canyon" or "Mount Rushmore?" I wonder why you'd draw that line specifically.

You are mad that the empire doesn't match the aesthetics of some purported morality, it's spineless. It has always been evil, if "Gulf of America" or "Department of War" is the only point where you even consider the misuse of this "authority," you've been dangerously ignorant until now.

[–] totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I am a simple man: I see a fascist attempt to impose his will on the rest of us, I oppose it.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Only Congress can create, rename, or eliminate departments. No matter what big baby says.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

I cannot express in words strongly enough just how little respect I have for who has the right to make what decisions in a wholly genocidal and imperialistic system. You think the legality is the problem, grow the fuck up. Do you know the indigenous name for the land you live on? Ask yourself why you would only notice the legitimacy of the US once its legal system is subverted and not when it fucking commits genocide to survive.

In fact, for this reason DOGE was not a brand new department but the result of Trump taking over the United States Digital Service, hollowing it out, and turning the shell into the United States DOGE Service. This was a tragedy because the USDS was doing genuinely useful work by bringing in people from the industry to use their experience to improve the incredibly crappy government digital services that exist. I was fortunate enough to see a talk by one of the founding people of the USDS (before it had official existence), and it was inspiring hearing how much of a difference he was able to make and how it made a real impact on the lives of veterans who were dependent on the service that was collapsing.

Additionally, this was also a tragedy because other departments had essentially been gradually coaxed into granting the USDS access to their data so that USDS could make improvements to their systems, which DOGE immediately took advantage of to get direct access to all of this data after it took over the USDS.

[–] slag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 hours ago

Department of War Crimes