Ah, I upvoted specifically because those countries do not control Anthropic's products, and thus reasoned that the comment implied that an adversary, for the purpose of the law, was some external not-quite-enemy type entity, and that application of the law to Anthropic was thus unreasonable, as it obviously is.
It's not like people actually need satellites. We already have ground-based communication in the form of mobile phone networks etc., so I don't think the harm of making LEO unusable would be very great.
I suggest talking to people in Ukraine or Africa or even rural US or Europe before you so blithely take away their access to healthcare, education and communication.
It's a really strange decision to choose the security council as the forum, given its purpose.
I think the reasonable thing would have been to let some sort of committee of interested countries to have access to a bunch of relevant. It could still be public and in video form.
I like the call for ensuring that AI isn't concentrated in one company or country though. I would be happy if this were followed, with appropriate EU efforts to make good training accelerators etc. so that we could have our own reasonable 10T+ models.
I've poo-pooed the bio stuff earlier, but I think I agree with the threat to some degree, but I still absolutely hate the idea of central control of models, probably because it's still central control.
So I can read the DOJ sentence two ways, I first interpreted it as #1, but it sounds like you took it as #2?
1. "We mean people who at that time qualify as agents under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, we said "acting as" because it indicates a temporary employment status rather than an innate human characteristic."
2. "We are weasel-wording to target all people with similar acts to how agents would act, but who would not qualify under the law we want you to think we'd be drawing authority from."
I empathize with your concern, but as bad as things are we shouldn't assume infinite malice from all federal entities in all circumstances. Not out of kindness or charity, but because it would be a maladaptive strategy for handling problems.
If they try charging Joe-Shmoe under FARA, there's still some chance of loss in federal courts.
No need to assume infinite malice, but given the track record, it would be naïve to assume anything other than a default of malice unless proven otherwise
The evidence in front of us (the malicious words of the person in question) strongly favors malice anyways.
There's been a lot of stuff bringing us back to the 2002-2008 era, with the occupation of Afghanistan, etc., now that the Brits are finally investigating the SAS men who murdered people in their beds etc., so I've been reading about the old El-Masri case and the CIA black sites in Europe, and the use of state secrets privilege to block El-Masri's lawsuit in the US, the Polish unwillingness to seriously investigate.
The only two good things are I think the ECtHR's willingness to demand an investigation, and one can question whether the CoM of the CoE have done their job in ensuring implementation, but they're at least regularly checking whether there are implementation attempts.
But what struck me was the endless deference of the ICC. They've limited their Afghanistan investigation to Afghani perpetrators even though they have access to vast numbers of Europeans with information about the black sites and the investigation of these things is even more tractable than investigating things in Afghanistan, and I think it's this deference that is the ICC's problem.
The ICC actually has powers sufficient to deal with the sanctions completely, with no need for aid from European states in any regard.
It's to the point where anyone participating in anything affecting the ICC's ability to do its job can be ordered arrested and confined indefinitely. The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC. The only thing preventing milder things like ordering the arrest of the CEO and board is the ICC's insane deference. They can also apply these things to the American political leadership who have passed the sanctions.
So I really don't understand the Americans. The ICC is doing exactly what they want. They're not even subpoenaing Europeans who sit right here with knowledge about the black sites and torture, even under intense criticism from victims who are of course pushing for investigation.
The article really misunderstands what sort of powers the ICC has. The ICC doesn't need the blocking statute to end enforcement of sanctions, they can order the arrest and indefinite detainment of anyone participating in retaliation against the court.
>The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC.
I would suggest that the reason that the ICC hasn't done this yet is not deference, but because they don't want to have to force a bank to choose between having their business essentially destroyed by being sanctioned by the US, and being arrested by the court.
Surely that is just the US asserting themselves to be more belligerent than they are? Just a bluff?
Imagine if China seized a US ship carrying nuclear weapons components. It'd be war immediately, and the US of course knows that the same is true of China.
There's also no basis under international law. China is of course a nuclear weapons state and numerous nuclear weapons states have transported nuclear weapons around the world, with nuclear weapons sharing being a something old and accepted.
One special reason that one would expect China to respond to such an operation by actually going to war immediately is that, if it were a nuclear weapon, with all the details and delivery systems etc., it could be analyzed to see how it reacts to missile defence stuff, which might reveal some unknown weakness that would allow MAD to be ended. So somebody getting themselves access to the core reentry, MIRV and maneuvering stuff would be a reason to attack him right away.
It's possible that it is, but if someone tried to prosecute it, state secrets privilege would like be invoked, as it has been in similar cases, so prosecutors don't even try.
No, but the US has historically permitted even cold-blooded torture of innocents with no liability, and has asserted the state secrets privilege to prevent lawsuits and prosecutions, so it wouldn't have mattered.
But that's a US-specific thing. With humans you at least have this theoretical liability-- that there is someone who could be punished.
reply