I am sorry, that's where I stopped reading. If I want partisan screeching, I go to Reddit (I don't actually but that's what I would do if I wanted it). You may enjoy portraying your political opponents as raging maniacs, but I don't see how it would help me understand anything, and as such, this discussion loses any appeal to me.

Regrettably, this already is happening today, and have been happening since there was a military. All the time. Intel is imperfect, situation changes quickly, people make mistakes, shit happens. The army is not interested in increasing the number of such occurrences - because the army is not incentivized on destroying targets it wasn't asked to destroy. But it still happens. It happened without AI and it will happen with AI. Putting mandatory human in the loop may be a ideological and philosophical choice, but I don't see any argument here it will always reduce such occurrences. In fact, if anything, it might increase them - humans are known for hundreds of cognitive biases.

> The question is about the US government using its influence in a competitive environment to hamstring one company.

No company is owed contract from the US government. Of course, companies that get a lot of contracts from US government, may profit more than ones that do not, but it still don't create any entitlement. US government has its specs, Antropic is unwilling to make a product for those specs, so US government is not buying from Antropic. Presenting not-buying decision as a hostile action implies there's an entitlement to be a supplier, and such entitlement does not exist.

> Since then, it has come out that AI was used in the decision to target an elementary school for girls that killed 120 schoolchildren.

We are getting into the territory of "70% of traffic crashes are blamed on sober drivers, therefore driving sober is a crime". OF COURSE once AI starts to be used, somebody will eventually make a bad call, somebody gets fed bad intel, something changes and somebody does not notice, and AI would be used in a chain that led to a disaster. AI is not God and is not Oracle of Truth, it's a tool. Every tool is imperfect and depends on its inputs and it's usage. Every tool has boundaries of usability and error margins. You can not change it coming with your post-hoc knowledge and pontificating that if some mythical all knowing human happened to be in the chain at the precisely correct moment he'd prevent the tragedy. Such human never exists at-the-time, only post-hoc, when all the social media is full of them, and there's no AI that allows you to read tomorrow's Twitter, and never will be. Claiming that DOD should not ever use tool X in a scenario that could lead to a disaster is claiming to never use tool X at all - because every practical scenario with practical assumptions can. And ultimately, it's a call for DOD to never exists as a military. Which I guess would be fine with some folks, but I think you'd not expect DOD to agree with that.

> My supposedly very vivid imagination translated this to reckless decisionmaking that led to a large number of innocent civilian casualties, aka war crimes.

As I said, extensively, the reality of warmaking will inevitably lead to innocent civilian casualties. There never was, and never will be, a war (at least real, hot, shooting war) where innocents would not be suffering. It's not the intention of DOD, it's the reality of how things happen. Now we learn your definition of "war crimes" includes, essentially, any warmaking of sufficient scale in time and space that will inevitably cause innocent casualties, and with sufficient scale, they could be claimed as "large". In other words, every (big enough) war is a crime. It is a possible position, even if a bit too idealistic and high-horse-y to my taste. But I think now at least you can appreciate why it would be very imprudent for DOD to subject themselves to people who would limit their capabilities based on such sort of definitions?

US Society has mechanisms for preventing and investigating war crimes. They may not be perfect, and you may not be happy about how they are working, but I doubt that "give control over it to some random guy that makes AI models" is an adequate solution for that. If Antropic decided the risk of DOD circumventing those mechanisms is too high for them to tolerate - they have full freedom not to sell to DOD. Which they used.

> I quit using ChatGPT entirely over this incident

And this is supposed to be an argument because....?

> They agreed to a contract where the DoD could and in practice is using their AI for committing war crimes.

You have a very vivid imagination. Not trying to use it to state things that could be misinterpreted as statements of fact would be nice. Not that I am new on the internet, so I know it's not going to happen.

Army: "OK, we will make sure not to use your AIs"

Antropic: "How dare you! We are suing! We intended for you to keep using it but do only what we want!"

Army: "..."

Who said anything about putting them aside? There would be a process and highly paid lawyers confirming that selling user data is only for the user's ultimate benefit, as it allows to provide awesome services to the users, and it all will be outlined in a 100-page privacy policy which you will be sure to read on each site you use, wouldn't you?

> But to describe it as “just hoops whilst allowing everything” is unfair.

Can you quote me the place where GDPR prohibits this? Not says something like "weigh user privacy" and "take adequate measures" and so on - which can always be resolved as "we weighed carefully and we took measures and we decided selling the data was awesome and users love it" - but explicitly and unambiguously prohibits the practice? If you don't find it - that description is exactly what it is.