Hegseth Gives Anthropic Until Friday To Back Down on AI Safeguards (axios.com) 195
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei until Friday evening to give the military unfettered access to its AI model or face harsh penalties, Axios has learned. Hegseth told Amodei in a tense meeting on Tuesday that the Pentagon will either cut ties and declare Anthropic a "supply chain risk," or invoke the Defense Production Act to force the company to tailor its model to the military's needs.
The Pentagon wants to punish Anthropic as the feud over AI safeguards grows increasingly nasty, but officials are also worried about the consequences of losing access to its industry-leading model, Claude. "The only reason we're still talking to these people is we need them and we need them now. The problem for these guys is they are that good," a Defense official told Axios ahead of the meeting. Anthropic has said it is willing to adapt its usage policies for the Pentagon, but not to allow its model to be used for the mass surveillance of Americans or the development of weapons that fire without human involvement.
The Pentagon wants to punish Anthropic as the feud over AI safeguards grows increasingly nasty, but officials are also worried about the consequences of losing access to its industry-leading model, Claude. "The only reason we're still talking to these people is we need them and we need them now. The problem for these guys is they are that good," a Defense official told Axios ahead of the meeting. Anthropic has said it is willing to adapt its usage policies for the Pentagon, but not to allow its model to be used for the mass surveillance of Americans or the development of weapons that fire without human involvement.
Nice AI you have here (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Re:Nice AI you have here (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing with TikTok. Nice platform you have there, it works too well. We are going to take that.
Kleptocracy at its finest.
Government by temper tantrum (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod FP GP funny and parent too cynical and too true to be funny anymore. If only Slashdot properly allowed for compound moderation with some extra dimensions...
However my main reaction was to the "angry baby" aspect of the story. That's how it sounds to me, but at least Hegseth isn't taking it out on his wife this time. (Let's drink to that?) Threats and temper tantrums are just how the American government works these days. The toddler-in-chief has truly reshaped the country, though I don't remember that promise from his "conservative" campaigns. The hats should say "Don't Upset Me Before..." with the obvious acronym "DUMB".
Re: Government by temper tantrum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We didn't get anything, however the demagogue in the white house has definitely received things in return for access to those chips..
Re: Government by temper tantrum (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Government by temper tantrum (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be that this man is more qualified for the job than any in last decade or two by the objective numbers
No, he is not. Not unless you go back about 150 years he might be considered qualified. Here are Lloyd Austin's qualifications [wikipedia.org] when he was nominated for Secretary of Defense. This is on top of graduating from West Point, on top of serving as a four star general, on top of a Silver Star and five Distinguished Service Medals and serving for 31 years.
Now here are Hegseth's qualifications. He served a total of 9 years of service with no significant command obligations.
To even suggest a drunk white guy who beats women is somehow more qualified than a black man who served with distinction for decades and had the lives of thousands of troops in his command only shows how demented you people are.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no particular admiration for Walz but even he would be a far better choice than Hegseth.
I suppose Kegsbreath might be my 1st pick if the only alternatives were Rafael Cruz or Gavin Newsom
It helps when you control the DOJ & SCOTUS (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, elect a felon to run the DOJ and somehow he doesn't get arrested.
Yeah, according to the epstein files, the little girls are the ones that the president rapes.
You trump cultists have serious issues with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it made up? Probably, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt given that we're talking about a guy who literally boasted how he could go into trailers and grab girls by the pussy and objectively is besties with a child sex trafficker.
They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Given all the things we know about Trump, and all the things Trump directly says about himself first hand we really would need extraordinary evidence that he is *not* raping little girls.
Re:It helps when you control the DOJ & SCOTUS (Score:5, Informative)
Nice try, you asshole pedo-lover.
Re: Government by temper tantrum (Score:5, Insightful)
If you voted for Trump twice, I won't trust a single claim you make. And if you *claim* to have voted for Trump twice, I'll assume, until there is proof otherwise, that you are some kind of sociopath as well as a liar and untrustworthy.
Re: Government by temper tantrum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies, I lack extra dimensions. Also all the moderators fled the compound.
Re: Nice AI you have here (Score:4, Insightful)
Small difference between canceling a contract and declaring the company a national security threat, or threatening to nationalize it. Anyone who's happy to see this sort of thing going on should ask themselves, "how do I feel about Putin doing this same thing? How would I feel if Kamala Harris did it?"
Re:Nice AI you have here (Score:5, Insightful)
The threat specifically includes invocations of the DPA. That is not "canceling a contract."
That is using the law to force the company to accept the new deal, and pray you don't alter it further.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you illiterate, lazy, or trying to gaslight?
The threat specifically includes invocations of the DPA. That is not "canceling a contract."
That is using the law to force the company to accept the new deal, and pray you don't alter it further.
Apparently from media accounts it is all of the above cancellation included.
"One person close to the discussion said Hegseth dangled the possibility of canceling Anthropic's $200 million contract with the Defense Department"
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is threatening to blacklist Anthropic from working with the U.S. military over the artificial intelligence company's refusal to loosen its safety standards."
"Hegseth plans to invoke the Defense Production Act, a law from the 1950s usually invoked during na
Re: (Score:2)
Except this is not that...
Hegseth disagrees with you based on his own words.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly would the DOD cripple or sabotage that? The only thing they can do is Hegseth's first threat - sever all ties. Just like the Bush DOD severed all ties w/ all the BSDs back in the 00s due to Theo de Raadt's opposition to the Iraq war (stupid, imho, since neither NetBSD nor FreeBSD were offenders)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know about that. That sure makes whoever was in charge back then look intelligent doesn't it. Not sure what those "ties" were in the first place, other than using the software.
Regardless we're rapidly approaching a new phase, already reached in countries like Russia (familiar after decades of soviet rule), where we will have to keep our opinions to ourselves, or face the wrath of the leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Some fun reading for you. [wikipedia.org]
In sane times, the Government would threaten to sever ties.
However, with this administration, if the carrot doesn't work, they'll use a stick. If they can't use a stick, they'll reinterpret an old toothpick into one.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Supply chain risk" determination is pretty savage. It would forbid anyone doing commerce with the government from doing commerce with anthropic. Its a company killer.
Now, chances are it'd last about 5 minutes in front of a judge before being overturned as a malicious interference with commerce but its an incredibly dangerous situation for a company to be in.
All because the govt wants to make terminators.
Re: (Score:2)
Nerds that hold power. Call powerful whatever you want.
Re: Nice AI you have here (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, go cry me a river. Name ONE actual national security threat that the US needs an unfettered AI to defeat.
Re: Nice AI you have here (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, go cry me a river. Name ONE actual national security threat that the US needs an unfettered AI to defeat.
Parsing Trump's State of the Union speech tonight? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, go cry me a river. Name ONE actual national security threat that the US needs an unfettered AI to defeat.
Parsing Trump's State of the Union speech tonight? :-)
I wish I had mod points. That was a good out loud laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nice AI you have here (Score:5, Informative)
This was 11 fucking years ago now.
"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."
And millions of people stood up and cheered after hearing that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Anthropic named two for you. Okay, the second one isn't a national security threat, it's a desire for a tool to deal with them.
Wasn't dangerous enough as it was? (Score:3)
Terminators? (Score:2)
Re:Terminators? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that Hegseth does, in fact, want Skynet.
Re:Terminators? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hegseth believes that it will only hate the people he teaches it to hate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Alignment fine-tuning was one of the very first things done with LLMs.
No, the AI will not suggest you eradicate humanity, or some chunk of it.
You could train an LLM to be likely to produce outputs like that, but uh, news flash- we aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello MIL-Claude, lets start with option #6
Re: Population bombs (Score:2)
There's a big space between whole towns of people dying of influenza like they used to, and safety at any cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as "instinctive equilibrium." All organisms'* populations increase until they reach their environment's carrying capacity. That's the point at which their death rate equals their birth rate. The feedback isn't instant so usually the population oscillates around the actual carrying capacity, i.e. feast followed by famine.
* Except one, maybe. Humans did just as all other organisms do up until recently. It's called the Malthusian trap. Every increase in food production capacity was just e
Re: (Score:2)
Every other mammal achieved equilibrium by the sword, a mix of giving and receiving, until a new homeostasis was achieved.
Every life form acts like a virus. It is limited by every other life form also acting like a virus.
That was a fucking great scene- but the Smith's sentiment was actually really fucking ignorant.
Re:Terminators? (Score:4, Funny)
Fortunately, if Hegseth is training it... it'll likely become an inept drunken mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Terminators? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want SkyNet? Because this is how you get SkyNet....
The problem with the current regime is that they've bought into their own superiority to the point that they believe no matter what power they create, they'll always have control over it. They are just dumb enough to think that if they create a killbot, it'll never be turned on them.
Re:Terminators? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck there was a time the GOP thought that about Trump. But he did turn on them and with a minority of really extreme diehard supporters he's managed to completely co opt the party and pushed moderates out. And some that were moderate he's managed to completely turn to the extreme. Fascinating (and horrifying) to watch it unfold in real time.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also immoral enough to want that killbot. Two exceptionally bad fails.
I'll Subscribe (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll subscribe to Claude's most expensive subscription, if Anthropic fights this successfully.
Also, be aware that whomever the Pentagon replaces Anthropic with, 100% sold out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll subscribe as well.
Isn't the government already in bed with xAI? (no surprise there)
So this means (Score:5, Insightful)
He either wants to mass surveil Americans or create weapons that kill people autonomously without human involvement. Mostly likely both but he's not quite ready to say that out loud. Give it a minute though . . . This is after all the Trump era where you can say anything out loud. Even "Grab 'em by the pu**y ".
Anthropic has said it is willing to adapt its usage policies for the Pentagon, but not to allow its model to be used for the mass surveillance of Americans or the development of weapons that fire without human involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
He either wants to mass surveil Americans or create weapons that kill people autonomously without human involvement.
I see your problem. This should fix it.
sed -i 's/or/and/g'
Re:I'll Subscribe (Score:4, Insightful)
Anthropic is the one who signed with the US government. They're trying to do what they can to keep the contract without totally removing safeguards they've built the entire platform on. They're doing everything in their power to keep the government paying their bills and help enable Hegseth, without giving him full control.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll subscribe to Claude's most expensive subscription, if Anthropic fights this successfully.
You're actually going to spend $2400 / year on this? Or did you not know how expensive their plans get?
Tacky gold trophy store (Score:4, Funny)
Anthropic is asking the gold trophy store for a rush job on the most bigly award for AI excellence.
Re: (Score:2)
Anthropic is asking the gold trophy store for a rush job on the most bigly award for AI excellence.
Another shiny Piece PrAIse - I mean, "Peace Prize" - for the Toddler in Chief.
Tell them to piss off (Score:3)
But, they won't, because they'd never voluntarily give up that sweet, sweet military contract worth many billions of dollars. They'll bend over and take it just like every other spineless company has, does, and will do.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that the Defense Production Act can prevent them from cancelling the contract.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Hegseth's Henchmen can tell them to do stuff and they have to do it. There's no opt-out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Yes. The Defense Production Act (DPA) allows the U.S. federal government to legally require certain private companies to accept and prioritize specific government contracts for goods and services deemed critical to national defense, including some nonâ'military emergencies like pandemics or energy crises."
So sez perplexity.ai.
Sounds less like compelled speech and more like slavery to me, but there you go.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I don't believe that enslaving corporations is illegal. A bit of a dubious practice if you want to get continued corporate investment, however.
Now the employees of the corporation, that would be a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
so the contarctor does the very worst job they can do and still comply with the contract. What a winning strategy!
There's something to be said for goodwill in business...
Re: (Score:3)
Well then you would tell them you think Oracle is the best. They have such an astounding record of success and customer satisfaction after all. Easy recommend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This administration has demonstrated that you don't have to follow laws anymore.
Re:Tell them to piss off (Score:5, Interesting)
It's my understanding that the Defense Production Act can prevent them from cancelling the contract.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Hegseth's Henchmen can tell them to do stuff and they have to do it. There's no opt-out.
You are wrong.
Under the DPA, the Government can require a person/business to provide their product or service to the government. The government can even claim priority -they get all of their units before you can sell any to anyone else. The government can grant the right to produce your product (even if you hold a patent) to others to produce what they need (typically because you cannot reliably produce enough to meet their needs).
The government cannot mandate that you make things for them that you do not otherwise make. They can only buy what you sell.
The government can always offer to pay you to do something new for them, but you are free to say "no."
In this case, it is a little murky. Under the DPA, Anthropic can be forced to sell licenses to the government, but it raises the question:
-is allowing their AI to be used for "prohibited purposes" creating a new product (as custom coding would be required to bypass the restrictions) ?
-or would it just be the DoD using the off-the-shelf product in a way that Anthropic does not approve of ?
Re: (Score:2)
The government cannot mandate that you make things for them that you do not otherwise make
That's not entirely true. During Covid the government was forcing Ford etc to manufacture ventilators.
https://www.straitstimes.com/w... [straitstimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
What part of what I said is wrong?
This part:
The DPA does not give the government the right to force you to do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:3)
The DPA does not give the government the right to force you to do whatever they want.
I'm sure that will actually count for something in 6-9 months after the fact when the supreme court rule on it. Meanwhile the DPA will give them the cover for them to force you to do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately he has a nice shiny law to use, which the summary mentions he already threatened.
The other possibillity in his threat, listing Anthropic as a supply chain risk, means that any company with Anthropic anywhere in their supply chain is potentially banned from government contracts. In the US that's pretty much the corporate death penalty.
He'll go with direct force though.
Re: (Score:2)
He's only bound by the fundamental laws of the universe and/or biology. SCOTUS finally found their spine a year and change too late, and they're just being disregarded. "Fuck you, I'm increasing the tariffs you told me I can't have at all". Why should we reasonably expect any other behavior at this point?
But one of the fundamental laws is "you can't compel something to exist just because you want it to". If there is no product to deliver, then a government could attempt to strong-arm them economically
Re: Tell them to piss off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell what is wrong with supporting the defense of your country.
When your country is the offender it cannot be called defense any more. Opting out because you do not want to facilitate the murder of news-unaware boat enthusiasts is a pretty solid moral stance.
For a party that allegedly loves Jesus you sure enjoy murdering Jesuses.
Re: Tell them to piss off (Score:4, Insightful)
That's hilarious considering he rolled out a literal red carpet for Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Corpos have the power to do jack shit here other than posture. If government invokes relevant legislation, they'll obey or they'll lose everything and spend the rest of their lives entertaining Bubba and his fiends.
Hegseth's legal option is to renegotiate or cancel the existing contract if he is unwilling to abide by its terms.
Re: (Score:2)
No, his option is to invoke relevant post WW2 legislation about government requiring resources for national defense and prosecute them for refusal.
Notably, it's not just US that has this sort of legislation. As I noted above, this is one of the lessons from WW2, so most of us have some variant of it. Consequences for corpos vary depending on jurisdiction, but they are exceedingly ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
No, his option is to invoke relevant post WW2 legislation about government requiring resources for national defense and prosecute them for refusal.
Absolutely not. One can't abuse emergency powers to get their way when there is no enabling emergency. This isn't what the law says and would violate Anthropic's rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All they have to do is say there is an enabling emergency, and that's what they keep doing.
To assert there is an emergency when none exists is an abuse of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Weak sovereigns indeed fear corpos from strong sovereigns. And they fear strong foreign sovereigns themselves far more.
Because as scary as corpos are to weak sovereigns, they are terrified of their own sovereigns. To death and beyond. How many court rulings from their sovereign do they dare refuse, even the most mundane ones?
Commies (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think these staunch anti-socialists would have a thing [wikipedia.org] or two [thehill.com] to say about it.
Who am I kidding, we all know exactly why they have nothing to say.
Re: (Score:2)
> I keep waiting for Trumpistas to honestly respond to the scattershot nationalization of the economy under Trump.
You're confusing Trump supporters with Conservatives.
Trump is basically a 1980s Democrat, not a modern "Send All The Jobs To Mexico!" Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You incels are hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
MAGA only (Score:5, Interesting)
could a right-winger please explain the logic behind the threat? either the product is a supply chain risk or it isn’t. it would be a supply chain risk if the military had guard-rails or not. so which is it? or is the threat a means to an end?
you guys are quite vocal about a lot of things. so, speak up! tell the rest of us how this makes sense.
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
It's a supply chain risk for military use because they refuse to let their tech be used for some kinds of military-style stuff. It seems pretty clear that he's correct there.
That doesn't mean they should, but from the military's standpoint the company is clearly a risk for military used.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand it was Anthropic that sought out the contract with the military.
Anthropic about to become a Prime Contractor (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny because having worked at a Prime before and seeing this very thing happen, I also don't believe very heavily in the military industrial complex. The concept was that industry would push the military to war because sales were driven by weapons usage, but that never really materialized. Rather, it was a welfare state. The DoD is a terrible customer, buying things in fits and starts, changing requirements in the middle of a program, and squandering R&D budgets on pet projects and nonsense. Meanwhile the contracting officers are too lazy to go direct to a Tier-2 or Tier-3 supplier for an interesting idea, and instead farm it out to a Prime who just subcontracts to the Tier 2 and puts an overhead fee on it. Meanwhile the warrant officers for a given technology are reluctant to change anything without 10X the proof of capability and safety studies than would be normal, meaning half of our military's subsystems are so legacy compared to what's available commercially that our military is eminently hack-proof because no modern hacker knows how to hack an abacus and a hamster wheel in code written in ancient Egyptian that is the backbone of many sub-systems.
The Primes on the other hand have regular bills to pay and workforces to maintain and see this insane way of doing business that the Pentagon does, and adapts to it milking as much overhead as possible so they can level out their monthly payroll expenses without too much labor disruption. All the while Congress has no idea what to do to fix the issue, so they impose restrictions on government employees where they have to report even a lunch meeting over $25 or get investigated while we squander billions with bad bureaucrat managers in DoD.
The one thing the Trump Admin is doing somewhat right is targeting this exact issue; somewhat right in that it's an issue that needs solving so they got that right, but wrong in that I don't think they know how to fix it.
Sorry for the rant. I loved my time working at a Prime and I still cherish it, with some great colleagues that I still keep in touch with. But once I started seeing how it all worked, I was just stunned with the ridiculousness of it all. And now we see effectively mid-tier at best contracting bureaucrats trying to manage something as fast moving as AI with all the subtlety of the Titanic, and with likely similar outcomes. And what's sad is that the DoD should cave to Anthropic. Claude is good, and the military does lots of things that don't involve weapons; it has the world's most complex logistics chain, a huge healthcare system, major R&D programs, huge humanitarian programs, it led to the development of game theory, it has (or had until Hegseth) one of the world's best leadership training programs; all of those aspects of the military could benefit, and if they really want killer-AI weapons, as bad as that is, I'm sure Musk will sell it to them with Grok. It's painful to watch what could be amazing utilization of AI become a giant s-show.
This should (Score:3)
US Freedom (Score:2)
Glad we don't have it...
If the AI is really smart (Score:2)
Ignore the drunk, sue everybody. (Score:2)
By the time the lawsuits are done Hegseth will be done and they probably will win some money. Also they should monitor his personal usage to the free apps they provide him... probably plenty of stuff in there and he's not smart enough to avoid it; also not illegal, you could put in a disclaimer and he'd miss it.
Can they? (Score:3)
Once a model is trained (possibly with guardrails) you cannot easily un-train it.
or (Score:2)
We want Skynet (Score:2)
We want it now. Give it to us. GIVE IT TO US.
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Informative)
DEFENSE Secretary. There has been no official name change from the Department of Defense to the Department of War. That requires an act of Congress, not some nebulous "executive order".
Re:Defense? (Score:5, Funny)
They identify as a department of war, no matter whatever you see in their pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Too funny. Yes the level of far-right wokeness is quite astounding these days! Complete with cancel culture (Trump's feelings were hurt by someone who worked for netflix). Talk about a snowflake. Not sure how these types of folks can function with all this cognitive dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Congress. Look you can call yourself what you want, when you travel someone will ask to see your passport. Businesses can call themselves what they want too, ultimately though they will get in trouble with the IRS if they use whatever name they identify with rather than how the business was legally registered. Likewise the Department of Defence can print all the business cards it wants with their fantasy name, it is called the Department of Defence until the name change is legally codified (in this cas
Re: (Score:3)
"Nuclear Weapons bad!" Yes I agree. "No one should develop them" Okay, that sounds pretty good. "Shit, the other guys built one, and now are threatening us" Well crap, I mean, if they are going to build them I guess we have to build them to deter them threatening us with them.
You just made the argument for the rest of the world developing nuclear weapons, given that the US is the "other guys" who built them first.
It's the same with the AI. "No mass survaliance or automated machines that fire on their own!" Okay, I mean that sounds good. I like that. "Shit, a country I wouldn't want to live in or under developed mass survaliance for centralized intelligence with AI, which is also watching us, and have automated weapons that fire on their own, and are now threatening us" Well, shit, I guess we should have them as well to stop them.
Except we're talking about mass surveillance of our own population here, that is what is being asked for. How does that counter another country's surveillance of their population? For the second part of the paragraph, it is practically the height of hubris to assume that once you hand over the decision to kill to non-humans, you can still control it.
That is the bottom line is of the problem. If no one could do it, then that's super reasonable and we shouldn't create it. If other people who I don't want to live under their rule are going to make it anyway, and I have a choice to either live under that countries rule, or have our own countries also develop those weapons, I'm going to be the lesser evil.
Both choices suck, but unless you're god you're not going to change what everyone in the world does.
You're framing this