It sounds logical and sound? As a US citizen, I (a) agree that we shouldn't be allowing government employees to use AI services from adversary foreign governments and (b) that other countries shouldn't be allowing their government employees to use AI services from adversary foreign governments (which the US should be considered for plenty of countries).
>Both nations may as well just say it - "we're banning it because they're our closest competitor".
I guess we're just ignoring the national security implications lol
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/23/china-cha...
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202607/1365448.shtml
https://netaskari.substack.com/p/chinese-llm-model-routing
https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3353002/shadow...
We're on HN, not The Onion's comment section. People will take this seriously rather than sarcasm.
It was sarcasm, right?
Look, in 2026, US big tech companies - and _especially_ frontier LLM companies, which are the topic here - clearly do not have agency to refuse government overreach. The US regime broke their contract with Anthropic, in turn Anthropic rightly raised this as an issue, what happened next? They were threatened to be killed as a company if they didn't play ball.
Let alone the dozens of millions every corp is donating to the dear leader's golden ballroom, giving golden statues, making movies about his wife and so forth. North Korea has nothing on the US any more.
Also google "Qwest NSA refusal". Around the same time as the Google subpoena you brought up. Grat example of just how much agency US companies have to refuse overreach.
Or, worst comes to worst, as Snowden has revealed, the NSA will just clandestinely hack American companies, as they did to Google when they rolled out TLS for search.