A classic:

THIS SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAILSAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

Could also be an article placed by a competitor + a squeaky wheel.

> due to a desire to extract more money from those customers

If it gives you high priority support, I dont care, if its the same tier of support, then that's just obnoxiously greedy.

I have a feeling in today's administration which largely "leads by tweet" that many traditional "inefficient" steps have been removed from government processing, probably including software on-boarding.

Can confirm these teams are still around. There is now an additional "SME review group" that must comb through any and all AI-related issues that were flagged, sends it back down for edits and must give final approval for before docs are sent over to provider for response. Turnaround has gotten much slower (relatively)

I have a legal education but reading TOS and priv policy docs at account creation is purposefully too time consuming by design.

One my fave new AI prompts: you are my Atty and a expert in privacy law and online contracts-of-adhesion. Review the TOS aggreement at [url] and privacy policies at [url] and brief me on all areas that should be of concern to me.

Takes 90 seconds from start to finish, and reveals how contemptuously illusory these agreements are when SO MANY reserve the right to change anything with no duty to disclose changes.

Perhaps it's the finetune of Opus/Sonnet/whatever that is being served to the feds that is the source of the refusal :)

This is a contract, not a click through license. You can't do that.

(Legally you can't do it with a click-through either, but the lack of a contract means that the recourse for the user is just to stop buying the service.)

The contracts will usually say “You agree to the restrictions in our TOS” with a link to that page which allows for them to update the TOS without new signatures.

The contact's restriction is on the usage of the model, not the behavior of the model.

Me too, actually, but this is some "leopards ate their face" schaudenfraude that I'm appreciating for the moment.

With SaaS, you can be monitored and banned at any moment. With EULAs, at worse you can be banned from updates, and in reality, you probably won't get caught at all.

Are EULAs even enforceable? SaaS at least have the right to terminate service at will.

Can we trust this though? “Cooperate with us and we’ll leak fake stories about how frustrated we are with you as cover”.

And I’m not singling out Anthropic. None of these companies or governments (i.e. people) can be trusted at face value.

I don’t get this notion. Politics has a place on HN like any other interesting topic does, whether you like it or not

Which part?

The fact of being elected is not relevant to the question, and neither is the nominal existence of constitutional checks. Extrajudicial murder of alleged criminals, abuse of criminal prosecution to target political enemies, armed thugs yanking innocent people out of their cars, steamrolling firms and universities into administration-favorable policy changes and extracting hundreds of millions of dollars — and that's just the first few things I could think of. There are dozens of examples. It is not inflammatory to describe simple reality.

I would be hesitant to call the US democratic process "free and fair." And the powers held by the president certainly make them more dictatorial then the heads of state of other democracies, particularly as wielded by the current administration.

So you have a democratic process of dubious quality that elected a government that is dictator-ish.

Don't accept that your countries elections are free and fair as a axiom.

Arguing de jure instead of de facto is fine until the reality of the de facto affects you.

The definition of dictatorial government is either a single person or a small group of people. So there being three branches of government doesn't necessarily prohibit a government from being a dictatorship if they are all working together to enact their authoritarian control without constitutional limits.

But really this is just pointless semantics. It doesn't matter what it is called it is still a problem.

I wasn't thinking of this administration necessarily. There's been cases going back to IIRC the early 00s, for instance Joseph Nacchio.

Ah my mistake. I thought they were French. I got them confused with Mistral.

The concern remains even if it’s a US corporation though (not government owned servers).

A lot of abnormal things happen when your government becomes a dictatorship.

I am not even sure what free market is, aside from Economics textbooks and foreign policy positioning. Whatever it may be, I don't think we had it for quite some time.

First of all, no need for personal attacks. Second, I am not supporting this, merely stating the reality.

Would you rather pretend that things like that aren't happening?