Doesn't matter.

There will always be some company willing to sell to even the worst person, in any product category.

The response that companies have to boycotts, and the results of the boycotts themselves, are fractally chaotic at best.

But even most nominally socially-aware companies are reactive, rather than proactive.

Since the knife vendors were metaphors for AI vendors, is the comparison you want to make "AI vendors & weapons manufacturers"? That's the standard we should judge them by?

It's not about the standard we should judge them by, which is equivalent to how we think they should act.

It's about how we think they will act.

Especially when it comes to sales to the US military, I have no expectations about how companies will act.

Hell, just look at how many companies willingly helped China with their Great Firewall.

> Not sure why knife dealers would be assumed to be more moral than firearms dealers

What I mean is that you _did_ judge them by a standard used for weapons manufacturers. How you react to their actions _is_ your judgement.

But perhaps that is the standard we should use. Weapons manufacturing is a well regulated industry after all. Export controls, dual-use technology restrictions, if it has applications for warfare it should be appropriately restricted.

> is that you _did_ judge them by a standard used for weapons manufacturers.

I think any of these companies will attempt to get away with whatever the fuck they can.

That has fuckall to do with your rhetorical question of:

> That's the standard we should judge them by?