From: Zack M. Davis Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 23:17:28 +0000 (-0700) Subject: check in X-Git-Url: https://zackmdavis.net/blog/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1a2ec7e02a22d5785ba094f1d2826bea0f685f41;p=An_Algorithmic_Lucidity.git check in --- diff --git a/contra_pace_on_when_to_apologize.md b/contra_pace_on_when_to_apologize.md index 33af147..129b3a5 100644 --- a/contra_pace_on_when_to_apologize.md +++ b/contra_pace_on_when_to_apologize.md @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ In ["The Financial Ledger Theory of Apologies"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ ## Genuine Regret Implies Policy Updates -Pace [writes](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xhePNvxamTKPcobhB/the-financial-ledger-theory-of-apologies): +Pace writes: > If I'm running around because I have somewhere important to do and quickly, and I bump into someone, my response isn't "I understand that I imposed a cost on you but I'm not going to be changing my policy of moving quickly when things are important and time-sensitive." I say "Oh I'm sorry!". The policy I'm running isn't to externalize the costs, it's to internalize them. This makes people not have to worry about me being around them. @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Pace oddly doesn't seem to consider the possibility of apologies not being accep But the invitation to _think of you_ as owing something is only meaningful if the thought is true—if you'll actually pay out. -When someone wrongs me, it seems like the _smallest_ ask I could reasonably make in exchange for my forgiveness is that they not do that again. Not to ask to be "made whole"—[for the past cannot be changed](http://unremediatedgender.space/2020/Dec/liability/)—but simply that they do better in the future, which can. +When someone wrongs me, it seems like the _smallest_ ask I could reasonably make in exchange for my forgiveness is that they not do that again (or more generally, update their policy such that they're less likely to do it again). Not to ask to be "made whole"—[for the past cannot be changed](http://unremediatedgender.space/2020/Dec/liability/)—but simply that they do better in the future, which can. If they refuse, saying, "That's sad, but I will not stop doing the thing that hurt you. Yet I will take this cost on _my_ ledger. I'm sorry. That's on me. Think of me as owing you a small something you can cash out another time," I have to admit I'm skeptical. If I can't ask _not to be hurt again_, what can I ask for? Money? Chocolate? Their car? @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ I think if I asked for their car, they would rightly refuse—"What? No, I don't ## Limited Liability Is Not a Gift From Debtors to Creditors -Pace characterizes himself as "a limited-liability-jokester", and characterizes his stance as "allow[ing] [him] to take risks while assuring people that—in expectation—they won't be worse off for interacting with me." The metaphor mixes a partly-correct understanding of [limited liability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) with a deep misconception. +Pace calls himself as "a limited-liability-jokester", and characterizes his stance as "allow[ing] [him] to take risks while assuring people that—in expectation—they won't be worse off for interacting with me." The metaphor mixes a partly-correct understanding of [limited liability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability) with a deep misconception. The part about enabling risk-taking is right. When a limited liability company gets sued, only the assets of the company are at stake, not the personal wealth (not invested in the business) of the founders or shareholders. Limited liability status is judged to benefit Society by allowing entrepreneurs to take risks that they couldn't afford under [unlimited liability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_company). diff --git a/dispatch_from_anthropic_vs_department_of_war_preliminary_injunction_motion_hearing.md b/dispatch_from_anthropic_vs_department_of_war_preliminary_injunction_motion_hearing.md index 5e57899..5be2cd5 100644 --- a/dispatch_from_anthropic_vs_department_of_war_preliminary_injunction_motion_hearing.md +++ b/dispatch_from_anthropic_vs_department_of_war_preliminary_injunction_motion_hearing.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Dateline SAN FRANCISCO, Ca., 24 March 2026— A hearing was held on a motion for For some dumb reason, recording court proceedings is banned and the official transcript won't be available online for three months, so I'm relying on my handwritten live notes to tell you what happened. I'd say that any errors are my responsibility, but actually, it's kind of the government's fault for not letting me just take a recording. -The case concerns the fallout of a contract dispute between Anthropic (makers of the famous Claude language model assistant) and the U.S. Department of War. The Department wanted to renegotiate its contract with Anthropic (signed by the previous administration) to approve all lawful uses of Claude. Anthropic insisted on keeping terms of use prohibiting autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of Americans, and would not compromise on those two "red lines". +The case concerns the fallout of a contract dispute between Anthropic (makers of the famous Claude language model assistant) and the U.S. Department of War. The Department wanted to renegotiate its contract with Anthropic to approve all lawful uses of Claude. Anthropic insisted on keeping terms of use prohibiting autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of Americans, and would not compromise on those two "red lines". Judge Lin began by describing her understanding of the case. Everyone agrees that the Department of War is free to just stop using Claude, the judge said. What was at issue was three additional actions taken by the government: banning other federal agencies from using Claude (as announced by President Donald Trump), announcing a secondary boycott forbidding federal contractors from doing their own business with Anthropic, and formally designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk. The present hearing was to help the Court decide whether to grant Anthropic's [request for an injunction](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.1.0_5.pdf), a court order to stop the government's actions against Anthropic for now until a longer legal process had time to play out. Judge Lin said that she found it troubling that it looks like the Department of War is trying to punish Anthropic for trying to bring public scrutiny to a contract dispute. @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ The next question was about the "less intrusive measures". The defendant had arg In reply, Mongan said that the defendant's argument was attempting to normalize the invocation of the supply chain risk designation, which was a narrow authority and not the normal way to respond to contract disputes under existing procurement law. It appeared that Secretary Hegseth had made the decision on 27 February, and people in the Department were scrambling to fulfill the procedural requirements after the fact, and not even successfully. -Judge Lin asked the plaintiff's counsel what evidence showed that Anthropic had the access to Claude after delivering it to the Department such that Anthropic could engage in sabotage if they wanted to. Hamilton said that the Department would require updates to the software; sabotage could occur then. Judge Lin asked if that the Department would have to accept any updates (as contrasted to Anthropic being able to update the software unilaterally). Hamilton said he wasn't sure whether the Department had taken a position on that; an audit was underway. +Judge Lin asked the defendant's counsel what evidence showed that Anthropic had the access to Claude after delivering it to the Department such that Anthropic could engage in sabotage if they wanted to. Hamilton said that the Department would require updates to the software; sabotage could occur then. Judge Lin asked if that the Department would have to accept any updates (as contrasted to Anthropic being able to update the software unilaterally). Hamilton said he wasn't sure whether the Department had taken a position on that; an audit was underway. Judge Lin commented that most IT vendors presumably had the capability to sabotage their product if they wanted to. "With every software vendor, it is a trust relation on some level," she said. Was it the Department's view that stubbornness in insisting on contracting terms made a vendor a supply chain risk?