This is exactly what I’m talking about.

If I'm reading the actual court documents correctly:

1. This wasn't an appeal. They had to make their motion to both the federal district court and the circuit court.

2. This was a motion for a temporary stay, not the actual case.

3. The rejection acknowledged the likelihood of economic harm to Anthropic but weighed it against the impact to the DoD. This isn't shocking and is how stays are meant to work: it isn't primarily a test of who is likely to prevail, it's primarily a test of what the risk to both parties is.

When you say things like "it's easy to understand how someone arrives at that position", you're laying the groundwork to justify why what you class as "callous indifference" is just a logical and natural state that we should accept.

We shouldn't. The people who are celebrating or ok with molotov cocktails being thrown are also bad people. To borrow your language: fuck them, too.

You keep writing comments where you try to wiggle between it being really important to think about the context in which people commit crimes and the context in which people are OK with crimes being committed based on not liking the victim, but also you keep clarifying that you don't condone what they're doing or saying.

What is your actual point? The best I can try to pluck out, the summation of the above is that the people throwing molotov cocktails, and the people saying it's justified, are bad people but they're bad for understandable reasons?

Anybody whose perception of Sam Altman was "he deserves for me to throw a molotov cocktail at his house" is a horrible person. I don't care if Paul Graham says he's a tough guy.

Explicit condemnation is only hollow if you don't mean it.

The phrasing in total is far more vague than what you’re presenting.

The signal you’re sending is that you are not open to discussing the issue.

What seems more probable is that the same advances that LLMs are shipping to find vulnerabilities will end up baked into developer tooling. So you'll be writing code and using an LLM that knows how to write secure code.

Yea, that’s basically exactly how the electric fences people have used for dogs for decades work.

Those aren't the only two options.

When you’re getting things from strangers, use any of the myriad ways to send files over a network, where HTTP / your browser are the safe dumb plug.

If you use SSH certificates, then you have to put the SSH CA cert on each server once, and you have to give signed certs back to each client once each time you sign a cert (which can be once per client or once per connection or anywhere in between).

You do not have to copy anything new to each server when you sign new client certs. Likewise if you sign host keys, you don't have to copy a new host key to your client when you add a new server.

Sure, you could get the same kind of trust relationships with other tools. But SSH certificates provide them and are an advantage of SSH certificates over traditional SSH public key auth.

It honestly feels like you're just dropping this thread into an LLM and asking it to write a disagreeing response.

That is not the case, and is a major advantage of certificates.