Thread

U.S. appeals court upholds designation of Anthropic as supply chain risk

499 points · 900 comments · cramer4next

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

iamdelirium · 1790353251 · focus · HN ↗
I wonder if this is going start being abused soon.
If I was Palantir or any other GOP aligned company, I would be completely against this. What's to stop a Democratic president from doing the same thing and destroying them?
1. mattnewton · 1790353411 · focus · HN ↗
  I’m worried why many big companies aren’t worried about when the shoe is on the other foot.
  1. bpodgursky · 1790353538 · focus · HN ↗
    None of them really believe our economic or political systems will be recognizable by 2028. Everyone's playing for position in the short takeoff.
  2. 2OEH8eoCRo0 · 1790354550 · focus · HN ↗
    I worry that they don't expect to leave power because they're acting like they will never be held accountable.
  3. GeneralMayhem · 1790391780 · focus · HN ↗
    Because Democrats, being (at the moment, and relatively speaking) the party of government actually functioning according to laws, are extremely unlikely to do this in the other direction. The two sides are not the same. It is not possible to be the party aligned with institutions, rule of law, and predictability, while also using the power of government arbitrarily and vindictively. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to use the power of government arbitrarily when you're the party of greed and corruption. So "Republican-aligned companies" don't have to be nearly as worried, and otherwise-neutral companies will become Republican-aligned out of self-preservation, because one side is going to punish them for disobedience (legally or illegally) and the other side isn't.
2. cramer4next · 1790353527 · focus · HN ↗
  Can you clarify what a GOP aligned company is? Is that any company thats willing to do business with the U.S. government or any businesses thats willing to sell products in red states?
  1. Ydarbleoj · 1790354014 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe it's the companies that flank the US president at events in an attempt to gain favor? Or the companies that own private prisons that lobby for immoral policies on policing?
    cramer4next · 1790355017 · focus · HN ↗
    This doesn't appear to be unique to the GOP. Plenty of companies flank to whomever is in office. Even at that local government level. "Immoral policies" is subjective and would be in the eye of the beholder. If this was truely quantiative the U.S. wouldn't be a divided nation.
    Ydarbleoj · 1790359217 · focus · HN ↗
    The mere existence of private prisons in the US is immoral. To argue otherwise, is a failure to extrapolate what that means at every level of gov and society. Weird take.
    sejje · 1790362241 · focus · HN ↗
    > The mere existence of private prisons in the US is immoral.
    This doesn't pass a basic logical sniff test.
    What if the private prisons provided much greater comfort, rehabilitation, medical and mental care, and so on? How could you call it immoral just for existing?
    Ydarbleoj · 1790362962 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a great what if despite what we currently know of these prisons and what we know of private companies seeking profit at the expense of whatever you're stating.
    There's a country in the 30's that used misinformation to sell what you're suggesting and they, at one point, had a thriving prison system that only took a little over a decade. Don't be so polyannish.
    cramer4next · 1790365145 · focus · HN ↗
    So if I follow your logic here you feel the same about grocery stores being private? Because if they were run by the U.S. government you wouldn't have 47.9 million people (about 1 in 7 Americans) living in food-insecure households? All because a private company that employs people are tryng to make money?
    SRC: <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics" rel="nofollow">https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
    Ydarbleoj · 1790366048 · focus · HN ↗
    You're definitely not following my logic because of your false equivalence WRT private companies and prisons.
    If you think prisons should have profit motives where growth only comes from continually seeking punitive policies to imprison people then I don't know what to tell you. The extrapolation isn't that hard and I don't anything good coming from it. Weird takes.
    cramer4next · 1790367257 · focus · HN ↗
    I think I am because the "equivalence" is private vs government run service. The arugment is equal. There is no public service thats better then the private equivalent. Period.
    sejje · 1790371612 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you think prisons should have profit motives where growth only comes from continually seeking punitive policies to imprison people
    Prisons don't get to sentence people, courts do.
    culi · 1790372184 · focus · HN ↗
    Lol if only. CoreCivic once accidentally left their logo on a bill they wrote for a congressperson and the congressperson forgot to remove it when presenting it. Actually it's happened multiple times. Most "model bills" that are tough-on-crime are written by them.
    sejje · 1790432192 · focus · HN ↗
    Again, there's a judge at the time of sentencing, not a congressperson.
    It's funny that you went across all my comment history to post replies to me specifically. What's your name? Wanna get coffee?
    colejohnson66 · 1790445787 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
    Helloworldboy · 1790359935 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    sophrosyne42 · 1790355044 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean the ones that have been doing so for many administrations across both parties?
    Ydarbleoj · 1790359287 · focus · HN ↗
    You think this admin is like others?
  2. samudrijan · 1790354718 · focus · HN ↗
    Oil and gas and the GOP are one and the same.
    Dems still subsidize O&G but they have other constituents they need to pay lip service to.
    Banking and finance own both parties.
  3. SpicyLemonZest · 1790355305 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't see a need to come up with a complete definition at this point. Let's start with cancelling all SpaceX and Palantir contracts and see how we're feeling; that may be enough to keep corporations in line.
    cramer4next · 1790356827 · focus · HN ↗
    Because there is none. Its rhetoric and its personal to you. Its like me saying I haven't spent a nickle on anything Nike because of their narative selling. Hence anyone who wears Nike products is a bad person. Its ridiculous, narrow minded and undemocratic.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790357590 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    hardbass · 1790357598 · focus · HN ↗
    Telling my mind about anyone or any company is the ideal expression of free speech and democracy. Using government force against a company that refused a contract is the opposite of democracy.
    cramer4next · 1790358622 · focus · HN ↗
    It sure isn't democratic when only the top 1 percent in charge make those decisions that inflame you. These companies have thousands, if not tens of thousands of employees, that I can guarantee don't agree on statements or positions that the people at the top make as a company whole. So why would you want you punish people who have nothing to do with this. In the end its the regular employees who pay, not the corporate leadership.
    hardbass · 1790358843 · focus · HN ↗
    I am the last person to "enjoy" that openai is getting boycotted. I respect both companies. And openai themselves probably did it under pressure knowing that Trump is a thug.
    cramer4next · 1790374873 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    hardbass · 1790375023 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't suffer from Trump Dicksucking Syndrome so I am afraid your diagnosis is mistaken. I use all models freely, why the fuck would I care about some bs military designation, I don't work in defense. Do you work for a defense company? If not why are you so stupid to refuse to use a model for this designation?
    cramer4next · 1790457218 · focus · HN ↗
    I work for a proprietary trading firm that creates markets and liquidity for U.S. based exchanges. Given our relience on AI now on decision making and identifying opportunities we can't afford to use solutions deemed a threat to any of our supply chains. What happens when Claude says you've earned too much money and I'm not going to do that? Straight up insanity.
    hardbass · 1790375077 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump is a thug who needs protection money to be paid or he will randomly declare you or your company a threat.
    cramer4next · 1790376493 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    hardbass · 1790376581 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem extremely confused. You are the one who seems to suffer from Trump Dicksucking Syndrome. I have no issues slagging off Trump.
    cramer4next · 1790451294 · focus · HN ↗
    Never heard of that disease before. Is that something local to Portland?
    hardbass · 1790375378 · focus · HN ↗
    Aren't you the one who said this?
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49694185">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49694185
    >For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom.
    cramer4next · 1790376399 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. Exactly where I stand. I also dont use anthropic products because of their false anti-gorverment stance even though they want to sell to them. If I could i'd short their stock too.
    hardbass · 1790376631 · focus · HN ↗
    It sure isn't democratic when only the top 1 percent in charge make those decisions that inflame you. These companies have thousands, if not tens of thousands of employees, that I can guarantee don't agree on statements or positions that the people at the top make as a company whole. So why would you want you punish people who have nothing to do with this. In the end its the regular employees who pay, not the corporate leadership.
    hardbass · 1790376927 · focus · HN ↗
    How are they anti government? You keep making up stuff out of thin air. Anthropic posited certain requirements in their contract, trump pissed and shat and got them designated a supply chain risk randomly instead of negotiating or just canceling.
    If you support using AI to kill people without human oversight and using AI to mass surveil the American population, of course its your freedom to.
    cramer4next · 1790377540 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    hardbass · 1790377732 · focus · HN ↗
    But you said Anthropic are obviously an unreliable source so why would you believe their lies?
    cramer4next · 1790378950 · focus · HN ↗
    Higher quality? Fot what vibe coding? Do you even know what it means when they deem you a supply chain risk?
    "“Supply chain risk” means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system (see 10 U.S.C. 3252)."
    Src: <a href="https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-239.73-requirements-information-relating-supply-chain-risk" rel="nofollow">https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-239.73-requirement...
    Now why would anyone want to use a product that carries that designation?
    hardbass · 1790379457 · focus · HN ↗
    Who is sabotaging who? Why are you making shit up?
    cramer4next · 1790381119 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not a vibe coder... Thats their claim to fame is. What are you using claude for?
    By chance, are at one of those depenceries with free internet in Portland?
    hardbass · 1790382485 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you use ai for? Is the internet faster in Epstein island where you live?
    cramer4next · 1790386904 · focus · HN ↗
    I dont use claude. I use Open AI for techical analysis of investment grade assets.
    Do you have a cat?
    rootusrootus · 1790361378 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    hardbass · 1790362447 · focus · HN ↗
    Collective will of the people cannot supersede your ownership over your business and its right to engage with anyone it wishes to free of government retaliation. The business is people. Feel free to go to a communist country if you want collective action against companies.
    rootusrootus · 1790363226 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    hardbass · 1790363441 · focus · HN ↗
    And I think the governments reaction was driven by trump's thuggery not any real reasons, any reasons given were after the fact. I mentioned those examples because you mentioned the collective voice of people, sometimes one needs reminded that unvarnished collective vote is not permitted to do certain things as rights of free expression and property exist, nothing more nothing less.
    addandsubtract · 1790358868 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems completely rational to me? Why would I do business with a company that doesn't share my moral values? I find the influence money has in politics more undemocratic than anything else.
    mpalczewski · 1790360840 · focus · HN ↗
    I doubt any company shares your moral values. Though a few of them might pay some lip service do some of your moral values. You tell me, have you audit all the companies you do business with to see if they share your moral values.
3. chrisjj · 1790353747 · focus · HN ↗
  How would this destroy Anthropic, exactly?
  1. sippingabonedry · 1790355374 · focus · HN ↗
    Their business plan of "sell government the WOPR, then tell them how they can't use it" is doing a good job of that already.
  2. ygjb · 1790355702 · focus · HN ↗
    Not just Anthropic, but practically speaking, the leading foundational model labs like Anthropic and OpenAI are burning through enormous amounts of money, and will need to pay that money back. If they are designated as supply chain risks, or controlled technologies, their ability to achieve that ROI is severely constrained.
    They are not turning a profit, and aside from enterprise token billing, every other offering they have is a loss leader. In order to flip that around they need to drive down the cost of inference significantly, either through massive compute improvements, more efficient or lower cost models, and either one lowers the barrier to entry for local and/or private cloud inference for open models. The moat established by the expertise in model training is effectively dissolving as they approach recursive self improvement because any mechanism that prevents model distillation effectively reduces the quality and utility of the models, so each improved model makes their competitors better by default if they want to realize those gains.
    The reason for the pivot to control and regulation seems to be more about erecting an artificial moat in their market, and having these technologies controlled or highlighted as supply chain risks will continue to drive investments in alternatives, especially in other countries where data sovereignty and domestic tech has become a priority given the last decade of the US dominated tech industry.
    I don't think that AI is going to go away, but I think the future of AI in the next several years looks alot like massive overfunded foundational model providers collapsing, their employees launching dozens or hundreds of direct competitors, and the leading hyperscalers buying up datacenter capacity the way they bought up dark fiber 20 years ago.
  3. stackskipton · 1790378010 · focus · HN ↗
    Because if you classified as supply chain risk, ANYONE who does business with DoD/DoW cannot use your product in any capacity.
    chrisjj · 1790416486 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    stackskipton · 1790515701 · focus · HN ↗
    That's an opinion but poorly held one. Big money is in selling to Enterprise, looking at F10, there are very few companies on there that probably don't have DoD contracts OR supply those who do.
    Looking at it by top 10 US companies by revenue, Walmart, Berkshire are probably only two that MIGHT not have DoD contracts. Amazon/Apple/Alphabet do for sure. CVS/UnitedHealth probably supply DoD healthcare, Chevron/ExxonMobil very likely supply fuel and Verizon supplies telecom links.
    So if you are Anthropic, those 8 companies cannot use your software AT ALL. That's massive potential revenue to lose.
    chrisjj · 1790534676 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    stackskipton · 1790552189 · focus · HN ↗
    Most companies are not going to take the risk that supply chain bleeds into defense side if there are alternatives available.
    chrisjj · 1790606911 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
4. _ink_ · 1790353885 · focus · HN ↗
  The supreme court, I guess. What makes you think they would allow that as long as Trump cronies have the majority there?
5. doctorwho42 · 1790353897 · focus · HN ↗
  Because the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.
  I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. They are a private entity, so they can manage and change their primary system any way they want.
  1. strappymcneeler · 1790354494 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. ajross · 1790354685 · focus · HN ↗
    > Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.
    Sarbanes-Oxley? Dodd-Frank? ACA? Now I'm sure you (like, every other living human) has a ton of nitpicks and criticism of bills like that. But they're real and they passed and they're largely-to-wholely partisan creations of the Democratic policy apparatus (SOX looked very bipartisan and was passed under Bush, but the actual bill was written mostly by democratic staffers).
    I mean, fine, you'd like different regulation. But they're responsible for basically all the corporate regulation active in the US regime.
    Bothsidesism is a very poor tool for this particular argument. Work with your allies, please.
    reliabilityguy · 1790355191 · focus · HN ↗
    > ACA?
    How’s ACA hard-hitting on corporations?
    The 15/20 rules is what resulted in recorder profits in health insurance business, how’s this anti-corporate?
    lotsofpulp · 1790355247 · focus · HN ↗
    Then why do the 7 publicly listed health insurers have shitty shareholder returns?
    Surely, if their profits are so good, their shares would be worth owning.
    eli · 1790356088 · focus · HN ↗
    If you bought shares of those 7 companies in 2010 when the ACA passed, how much would you have today? More or less than if you bought the S&P 500?
    If you're looking for policies to blame for insurance companies having a rough 2025-2026, look to the Republican-led efforts cap Medicare fees and alter eligibility requirements.
    lotsofpulp · 1790356188 · focus · HN ↗
    No...you wouldn't. Maybe UNH gets you a couple extra percentage points per year, but that's because they have a huge healthcare provider business instead of just being an insurer. But it's still nowhere near a positive risk adjusted return when comparing to a relatively risk-less investment in SP500.
    <a href="https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/" rel="nofollow">https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
    <a href="https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/" rel="nofollow">https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/
    jpadkins · 1790356491 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    Gareth321 · 1790358831 · focus · HN ↗
    > Then why do the 7 publicly listed health insurers have shitty shareholder returns?
    CNC is up 90% YoY. That's far more than any of the largest tech companies. Alphabet is the highest of the tech stocks, and it's up 38% in the same period. When we look at the performance of the seven large U.S. publicly traded health insurers, their returns were extraordinary in the decade following the ACA.
    ajross · 1790355412 · focus · HN ↗
    > How’s ACA hard-hitting on corporations?
    "You must sell insurance to sick people!", "I don't wanna!", "I don't care, the law now says you must."
    I mean, the whole insurance industry had spent the better part of a century (basically its whole existence) denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and the ACA fixed it via fiat.
    Not only is it clearly "hard-hitting", I'd argue it's probably the single most "hard-hitting" invasive change to corporate regulation of the post-war era. Certainly it is in terms of the amount of money involved in the affected market.
    > how’s this anti-corporate?
    And this is where the rub is. You're not saying that your desired regulatory structure is something different than existing proposals, you're demanding that your government engage in behavior that is expressly "anti" whatever you perceive "corporate" interests to be.
    That's not democracy, that's just warfare. You have enemies and you want to win. And the problem there is that the structure of our government requires compromise.
    travoc · 1790356170 · focus · HN ↗
    ACA literally forced every person in the US to become a customer of health insurance companies.
    lotsofpulp · 1790356531 · focus · HN ↗
    No, it didn't. If you didn't want to buy health insurance, you just had to pay a couple extra thousand in federal income tax:
    <a href="https://landline.media/affordable-care-act-tax-penalties-ending-but-not-until-2019/" rel="nofollow">https://landline.media/affordable-care-act-tax-penalties-end...
    >The penalty for not having an ACA-compliant plan or forgoing coverage in 2018 is the greater of $695 per adult and $347.50 per child for a maximum of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of adjusted household income. The percentage penalty is capped at an amount equal to the national average premium for a bronze plan, the minimum coverage available by law
    scottyah · 1790357244 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah yes, the very hard hitting anti-business rule that says if you don't become a customer of my friend's company, you must give me money. I'm sure the businesses were quivering in their boots when every citizen either became a customer, paid a fine, or became a felon.
    ajross · 1790356633 · focus · HN ↗
    It "literally" did not. What enforcement exists is financial (a tax penalty) and not compulsory. And obviously most people are covered via employer plans or Medicare, as has always been the case. A quick Google says that 19.2M Americans are enrolled in ACA plans. I don't have statistics, but I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those are willing purchasers. Most people view health care as desirable.
    ptaffs · 1790357444 · focus · HN ↗
    The "everyone has access to the ER" has to be paid somehow, which is through tax dollars. The USA has a for-profit health system but typical neo-liberalism has a safety net where corporates get to dip into a different bottom-less pot. So it makes sense that we make this visible by taxing everybody who isn't paying their own insurance, since they still expect access to ER.
    [deleted] · 1790358814 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    bushido · 1790355999 · focus · HN ↗
    Seeing Dodd-frank in the list is pretty hilarious, because it was put in place for the issues that arose from repealing Glass-Steagall by Clinton. Which arguably was one of the biggest causes of allowing the activities that lead to the Great financial crisis in 08.
    ajross · 1790356439 · focus · HN ↗
    This is why this kind of stuff is so difficult to argue about. G-S was repealed primarily by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act in 1999. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...
    And it is true, that it was signed by Clinton. But it was otherwise an entirely partisan bill passed with exclusively republican votes. All 44 democrats voted nay.
    Now, given that, do you really feel that that's a supporting argument to the upthread contention that Democrats are a corporate-dominated party and not interested in regulation?
    scottyah · 1790357086 · focus · HN ↗
    Please point to the hard-hitting ones, almost all the big co's at the time thought they got off too easy and were expecting a lot worse. At the end of the day, Sarbox and Dodd-frank basically just required those businesses to increase headcount 10%.
    Braxton1980 · 1790373350 · focus · HN ↗
    The comparison should be compared to the Republican party, the Democrats have done more and that's all that matters when you are making a choice between the two.
    scottyah · 1790638423 · focus · HN ↗
    You're creating a fake choice. Other people are commenting on how ineffective the party that claims to be the heroes actually are. Calling out BS here is right IMO.
  3. ipython · 1790355048 · focus · HN ↗
    I would argue the democrats are more a process oriented party. They wouldn’t pull this shit because they care about process - so much so that they wouldn’t even consider half the stuff that’s going on now as it circumvents process.
    reenorap · 1790355700 · focus · HN ↗
    Democrats are the same side of the coin as the Republicans.
    We, the people, are on the other side.
    Braxton1980 · 1790355875 · focus · HN ↗
    "Both sides"
    This is such a tired argument that over simplifies an entire group of people on both sides into a single entity that happens to be the same.
    cosmicgadget · 1790359394 · focus · HN ↗
    Making it a 0/1 situation is really reductive.
    nutjob2 · 1790362376 · focus · HN ↗
    What a load of bullshit. There are better candidates and parties and worse ones, they are not all the same. This sort of attitude just feeds voter apathy and resignation.
    Democracy is an imperfect system, but its much better than the alternatives. If more people paid attention and participated, we would have much better outcomes.
    whats_a_quasar · 1790380247 · focus · HN ↗
    "the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron."
    DavCreator · 1790500136 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://xxcancel.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en" rel="nofollow">https://xxcancel.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en
    kryogen1c · 1790355704 · focus · HN ↗
    > democrats are more a process oriented party
    Oh? Thats why Biden tried to run in 2024? Because democrats procedurally try to elect obviously incapable presidents?
    malicka · 1790355953 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. Their process prioritizes seniority generally, and this is another case. The process is, if the president wants another go, he gets another go; and he sure as heck wanted another go.
    joquarky · 1790363378 · focus · HN ↗
    So one man's desires become the rule for everyone else?
    Dylan16807 · 1790367571 · focus · HN ↗
    There's no reason picking someone every 4 years is democratic but every 8 years isn't...
    qlte · 1790356060 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not responsive to OP or coherent at all really, even if rhetorically structured like a gotcha.
    Incumbent Presidents in the US almost always run for reelection to a second term, that's the normal expected outcome with vanishingly few exceptions in the last century.
    kryogen1c · 1790358482 · focus · HN ↗
    > That's not responsive to OP or coherent
    The claim was Ds are more procedural than Rs. Asking what process the Ds followed to attempt to run, and then back out of running, biden (who again, was very obviously and publicly mentally incompetent) is clearly a rebuttal to a presented point.
    rootusrootus · 1790360656 · focus · HN ↗
    > who again, was very obviously and publicly mentally incompetent
    You can repeat that as often as you want, but it doesn't seem well grounded. He's always had a stutter, and since he left office he has given speeches which suggest his mental faculties remain intact. Is he slowing down? Yeah. He's got quite a long ways to go before he's in McConnell territory.
    In any case, what does his choosing to run have to do with process? Did he violate the process? Seems to me he was following it to a tee.
    reenorap · 1790356680 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't forget how Harris wasn't even nominated.
    And all the shenanigans around 2016 when Bernie Sanders was shut out by the DNC. Even Elizabeth Warren said outright that the DNC rigged the 2016 nomination. I think the outcome would have been very, very different if the DNC didn't fuck with the timeline and forced Hillary as the Dem nominee.
    paulddraper · 1790356869 · focus · HN ↗
    In recent history:
    * removed filibuster for lower-court nominations ("nuclear option")
    * impeached the president twice in a term
    * tried that former president in the Senate after his term ended
    * expanded mail-in voting en masse
    * repeatedly attempted to eliminate 60-vote rule for legislation
    I'm not claiming these were illegal, I'm just saying the process adapts to the needs.
  4. Braxton1980 · 1790355810 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought the Democrats were the party of big government and regulations whereas the Republicans were for reducing regulations?
    aetch · 1790356831 · focus · HN ↗
    More like the opposite in practice
    Braxton1980 · 1790369764 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    hardbass · 1790357523 · focus · HN ↗
    MAGA hates capitalism and free trade. MAGA loves government abuse.
    dgellow · 1790371251 · focus · HN ↗
    That has never been true, it’s just a Republican slogan.
    Braxton1980 · 1790372590 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    dgellow · 1790412138 · focus · HN ↗
    What about them?
  5. UncleOxidant · 1790355911 · focus · HN ↗
    > the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party
    I suspect this is changing. The DSA branch especially wants all contracts with Palantir eliminated.
    simonw_simonw_ · 1790356119 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    tyre · 1790365181 · focus · HN ↗
    The DSA branch has almost zero political power. Yes, Mamdani was elected. No, it was not because of DSA.
    DSA has very limited understanding of the politics of power. Agree or disagree with their policy and advocacy, but they lack a unified, coherent policy platform. They take stances from (imo) good places and suggest proposals that are politically untenable (to say the least) and realistically ridiculous.
    Mamdani is a unique politician. He is generationally charismatic, articulates the pragmatism behind solutions, and taps into the everyday struggles of citizens. When he talks about ideologically, it's soaring rhetoric about who we can be. His critiques, however, are often strongly tethered to tangible concerns (rent, food, education) vs. the DSA-type far left.
    Source: worked in democratic politics, on a presidential campaign, with a wide range of people on the left (and "left") including DSA die hards.
    satvikpendem · 1790366774 · focus · HN ↗
    Can't there be more politicians that talk about the pragmatic aspects too? Didn't El-Sayed win the Michigan nomination? I don't understand how this is hard for politicians to grasp, it happened with the Roosevelts and the New Deal, not sure why it can't happen now, even despite money in politics, as Mamdani and El-Sayed winning shows, who both had much fewer dollars spent on them than the competition.
    dogleash · 1790366562 · focus · HN ↗
    >> the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party
    > I suspect this is changing.
    Nope. The democrats have been on the cusp of becoming serious for as long as I've been following politics. It's a con to get your hopes up. Don't.
  6. [deleted] · 1790356029 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  7. mike_bob · 1790357513 · focus · HN ↗
    You got that exactly backward. Modern republicans are the ones that get the most in corporate PAC money, at the high end it's like 60/40% split... the majority to the GOP. Also, the fact that modern republicans brought Citizens United and just earlier this year NRSC v. FEC.
    You really can't make a valid case to say the dems are the corporate dominated party. ffs, they are the only ones even attempting to put common sense regulations on the financial industry, something Trump called "bad for business" when he undid antitrust legislature that got passed under Biden.
    everforward · 1790359597 · focus · HN ↗
    He didn’t say they were _the_ corporate party, just that they’re dominated by corporations. It’s notable because it’s an accusation that they pitch at Republicans often (not that R is doing any better there, but it’s part of their platform more or less).
    The dems haven’t done anything notably anti-corporate in ages. There are rumbles about doing it (anti trust, supporting unions, climate change), but it never _quite_ seems to actually materialize into anything.
    Cynically, that’s why both sides lean so hard into the culture wars. The men in suits would rather we argue about how to interpret history than whether a wealth tax makes sense.
    autoexec · 1790366851 · focus · HN ↗
    > There are rumbles about doing it (anti trust, supporting unions, climate change), but it never _quite_ seems to actually materialize into anything.
    There's only so much they can do when dealing with obstructionism, but the party is still putting forward legislation. For recent examples see The American Homeownership Act (<a href="https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/senate-democrats-introduce-the-american-homeownership-act-to-stop-wall-streets-housing-grab-and-get-homes-back-into-the-hands-of-families" rel="nofollow">https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/senate-demo...) and the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act (<a href="https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-hoyle-wyden-merkley-ocasio-cortez-subramanyam-introduce-bill-to-ban-the-corporate-practice-of-medicine/" rel="nofollow">https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren...)
    Republicans will fight those kinds of efforts, but we can't really blame the democrats for that.
    techblueberry · 1790368183 · focus · HN ↗
    He actually did say dems were the corporate party. He contrasted the democrats not do something that the Republicans did because Dems were dominated by corporations.
    The contrast implies that Republicans are in your words "anti-corporate"
    Braxton1980 · 1790373631 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  8. autoexec · 1790358851 · focus · HN ↗
    A few things I can remember them doing are net neutrality, banning non-compete agreements for employees, a DMCA exception for allowing 3rd party repairs to McDonald's ice cream machines, and blocking the Albertsons/Kroger merger.
    alex_sf · 1790358989 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing that is really landmark legislation. Dem legislators also didn't do anything about net neutrality. They deferred entirely to the FCC (which is largely why the rules were subsequently struck down).
    autoexec · 1790360969 · focus · HN ↗
    Multiple attempts at net neutrality legislation have made by democrats, in the meantime the FCC pushed for neutrality under Democrats while republican administrations have a much worse track record of support
    nutjob2 · 1790361841 · focus · HN ↗
    You write like the senate and its filibuster doesn't exist. They can't pass legislation without GOP votes. Of course they use the FCC given that fact.
    spencerflem · 1790364964 · focus · HN ↗
    The filibuster exists as a convenient excuse to not do anything without offending constituents
    autoexec · 1790369930 · focus · HN ↗
    If the filibuster is used to stop something that would benefit the people, that's actively doing something and the people should hold the obstructionists accountable for that.
    kortilla · 1790403740 · focus · HN ↗
    Being incapable of compromise for votes does not make good legislation. “You’re gonna need congressional approval and you don’t have the votes.”
    nutjob2 · 1790505071 · focus · HN ↗
    What compromise? The GOP are ideologically opposed to these sorts of things and immovable.
    What do you suggest, trading away people's healthcare or something for net neutrality?
  9. cosmicgadget · 1790359175 · focus · HN ↗
    Dodd-Frank? CFPB?
  10. techblueberry · 1790368034 · focus · HN ↗
    "Because the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party"
    And Republicans did it because.... They're anticorporation?
    pennomi · 1790369410 · focus · HN ↗
    No, because they are anti-“corporate ethics”.
6. shimman · 1790355217 · focus · HN ↗
  What's to stop indeed? Some of us in the tech industry want the dems to slice and dice every tech company into irrelevance. They've betrayed society and they should be rightfully punished in fun + creative ways.
7. binlog · 1790355455 · focus · HN ↗
  Democrats don't control the courts.
  1. eli · 1790356305 · focus · HN ↗
    Whose fault is that?
    binlog · 1790356634 · focus · HN ↗
    Whose "fault" is it that the judiciary has become an extension of the executive branch and taken over by a single party? You tell me..
    ceejayoz · 1790360106 · focus · HN ↗
    Mitch McConnell's?
    bgilroy26 · 1790360532 · focus · HN ↗
    Leonard Leo's
8. teravor · 1790356661 · focus · HN ↗
  the cold political war turned hot with the prosecution of Trump (he made it easy by being an idiot). there will be no considerations for retaliation now, both sides will be using whatever means they have available to damage each other.
  also if you look at how the two factions separate from each other decade by decade (there used to be overlap, almost none now) it's obvious that there will be no reconciliation.
  it's a musical chairs game at this point, whoever is in power when the democratic facade cracks will be able to seize power and transition into whatever single party state follows.
  1. iamdelirium · 1790359595 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean the president than literally ran on "lock her up"? That's the victim here?
    Stop trying to both sides this.
    teravor · 1790360246 · focus · HN ↗
    are you seriously equating empty rhetoric to legal action?
    Trump was an idiot who made himself an easy target for nobodies with no strategic bones in their body to go after him. note that his guilt or lack thereof is irrelevant, what matters is that legal action was initiated against a past president. this one action doomed the republic just like it did the previous Roman one.
    infamouscow · 1790361753 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a difference between campaigning on something and actually doing it.
    Letitia James campaigned on putting her political opponents in prison and then proceeded to try doing so.
    This isn't difficult to understand.
  2. infamouscow · 1790362754 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the blue team has been in a cold civil war since 2016. They can't come to terms with their progressive hegemony ending, but also can't pivot to a new politics because elections are too close to risk a mass preference cascade needed to revitalize the party.
    I think the red team is only now starting to come to similar terms, and will increasingly do so as the blue team continues to maximally exercises power against their opponents instead of revitalize the tarnished reputation of instituions.
    Around 2030, the US will need to spend 100% of it's tax revenue to service the debt, and California will need to a federal bailout or risk either default or wiping out their state pensions. I believe the coming financial disaster will likely be the catalyst that quiets the 'nothing ever happens' crowd, and both teams will need to reset their politics to the new world, distinctly different than the post-WW2 open society liberal consensus.
    A similar phenomenon is happening in Europe.
  3. SpicyLemonZest · 1790391328 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
9. dylanz · 1790358821 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think Palantir is concerned? Palantir is LLM agnostic and holds IL5, IL6, compliance with ICD 503, etc. Their entire platform is built around eliminating risk.
  1. bhelkey · 1790360646 · focus · HN ↗
    They are suggesting that a Democratic President could label Palantir a supply chain risk.
    If:
    1. The designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk is politically motivated
    2. We collectively accept that is okay for the US President to bar all defense vendors and contractors from working with an American company for political reasons.
    What defense related company(ies) would a Democratic President have political reasons to ban?
    It has been reported that Palantir and its founder have a history of political contributions to the Republican party.
    Instead of Republican presidents driving left leaning companies out of defense and Democratic presidents driving right leaning companies out of defense, it would be better if neither party used supply chain risk as a political weapon.
10. xienze · 1790366640 · focus · HN ↗
  > What's to stop a Democratic president from doing the same thing and destroying them?
  They probably will, and the comment section here on HN will overwhelmingly applaud it. Next question?
11. AlexCoventry · 1790373885 · focus · HN ↗
  IMO, it's almost certainly being abused. I just assume that all US domestic communications are being recorded whenever possible.
infamouscow · 1790353568 · focus · HN ↗
If the CEO of any other defense contractor did this, they'd be summarily fired by the board.
1. ripped_britches · 1790355001 · focus · HN ↗
  No defense contractor CEO in history has ever built a company this large, this fast. I don't think anyone is even thinking about firing Dario.
2. cosmicgadget · 1790359912 · focus · HN ↗
  Not ones whose defense customer base is dwarfed by its commercial customer base.
  1. infamouscow · 1790529624 · focus · HN ↗
    This is technically true, but OpenAI and Anthropic do not have a moat. Their mid to longterm financial horizons desperately depend on sinking their claws into government contracts which (in time) are larger and stickier than quarterly commercial contracts.
petcat · 1790353704 · focus · HN ↗
I still don't fully understand what this was about. It sounds like the DoD said they wanted unrestricted access to Anthropic's models, Anthropic refused, so the Pentagon declared that they wouldn't use them at all.
Isn't this basically what Anthropic wanted?
1. sippingabonedry · 1790354258 · focus · HN ↗
  Nerds at Anthropic thought it was a good idea to tell the US Government "we're the shot callers," to which the USG replied "lol, no" and dropped them like 3rd period French.
  It boils down to inexperience with a healthy dose of delusion on Anthropic's part.
  1. hardbass · 1790354515 · focus · HN ↗
    How is it delusion? If they don't want to work with certain types of government contracts they have the right to state so. Its just thuggery from Trump.
  2. hiddencost · 1790354590 · focus · HN ↗
    This is straight up fascism. The DoD could have simply used a different provider but instead they're trying to destroy anthropic as a company.
    majorchord · 1790355240 · focus · HN ↗
    Is it still fascism if they were properly elected and a court agreed with them?
    hardbass · 1790355361 · focus · HN ↗
    If its this court, then probably yes. They have special treatment of Trump.
    ilikehurdles · 1790356092 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that why he's so mad at their rulings all the time?
    hardbass · 1790356732 · focus · HN ↗
    They aren't yet ready to fully fall down in line and some of the judges are not trumpies.
    rcxdude · 1790355367 · focus · HN ↗
    The most famous example of fascism was democratically elected.
    IX-103 · 1790356162 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. That's pretty much how it works for fascism. The government uses powers meant for a legitimate purpose to instead intimidate people and the mechanisms of government meant to restrain such abuse fail or are taken over entirely. Have you ever studied history?
    majorchord · 1790364578 · focus · HN ↗
    But the idea is that you don't elect people who would behave that way in the first place. And it's not like anyone is actually canceling elections at this time, so they can be voted out later.
    To me a fascist government would prevent people from being able to take their power away at all, and simply do whatever they want with impunity, but I don't quite see that happening in the US right now. Courts are still ruling against the government, they're largely complying in most ways, and there will still be more elections.
    Are they trying to do some things that smell "fashy"? Maybe. But I still think it's a stretch to say the US government is full blown fascist in the same way we've seen that in the past in some other countries.
  3. lelandfe · 1790354597 · focus · HN ↗
    Garsh, how best to explain to this confused commenter the meaningfulness of designating a company as a supply chain risk to the government?
    Ah: withdrawing from a college course.
  4. kittikitti · 1790354953 · focus · HN ↗
    Especially since Anthropic themselves have been literally saying that AI might destroy humanity. Why is it a surprise when people take them at their word and designate them a risk to critical infrastructure?
    Side note, the Anthropic bots are astroturfing the comments.
    hardbass · 1790355054 · focus · HN ↗
    I hate communism. I am not a shill for any company. Governments blackmailing private companies is bad no matter what company.
    lukewarm707 · 1790355383 · focus · HN ↗
    personally, i think that anthropic is a supply chain risk. if the ceo writes 'pace the frontier' and wants to be in charge of the product, it's very risky (to the customer).
    anthropic treat customers very badly. they have claude lecture the user about the moral law according to anthropic. they change the product all the time. they have safety refusals to degrade functionality, they have mandatory logging so they spy on how it is used.
    it's unusable for a serious application.
    hardbass · 1790355794 · focus · HN ↗
    Irrelevant. Then the government should just refrain from taking the contract, not use violent force to restrict Anthropic doing business.
    lukewarm707 · 1790356028 · focus · HN ↗
    i don't understand.
    it is a supply chain risk, so they don't want it in the supply chain.
    that's logical.
    hardbass · 1790356206 · focus · HN ↗
    They can just refuse to entertain contracts with them if they dislike it. Why issue a supply chain risk? Its clear and pure thuggery and blackmail.
    ilikehurdles · 1790356568 · focus · HN ↗
    How is this a debate? Anthropic's AI was used in military/defense operations. When Anthropic discovered this and disclosed it publicly, they attempted to revoke access and went after the government demanding it not get used in such a way. This would be a supply chain risk to any government.
    If Lockheed Martin disabled weapons systems when it discovered the Air Force using its fighters over Iranian airspace based on Lockheed's ideological views, I'm pretty sure they would be labeled a supply chain risk at minimum. What is the issue here?
    hardbass · 1790357306 · focus · HN ↗
    The government canceling that specific contract with Anthropic is fine. It is too vast a scope to deny Anthropic to work with any other companies who also happen to be defense contractors.
    lukewarm707 · 1790356593 · focus · HN ↗
    they issued the supply chain risk to get it out of the supply chain.
    they don't want suppliers to use it because it is a supply chain risk.
    the designation stops suppliers from using it.
    it stops it from being in the supply chain.
    petu · 1790360127 · focus · HN ↗
    Devil's advocate, but Anthropic talks a lot about importance of alignment, so.. How can military ensure that their models don't refuse to work just to be malicious?
    Anthropic doesn't provide model w/o guardrails, suppliers have to use public version, newer model releases surely know about it's parent company standoff with the military.. how to prevent model from realizing that it's doing something for the military (supplier) and sandbagging and/or subtly sabotaging the results?
    hardbass · 1790361250 · focus · HN ↗
    That would be stupidity of the government that caused this situation in the first place. Anthropics position was they wanted to have oversight before it was used to kill people. Anthropic was right. The us govt is fucking incompetent and managed to kill an entire girls school using "AI".
    ilikehurdles · 1790356214 · focus · HN ↗
    Correct, from the government's perspective, anthropic is a risk to the supply chain and should not be included in sensitive government contracts.
    hardbass · 1790357232 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats too vast a scope. Whats not to say they start enforcing bans on Anthropic in any branch or usage of Anthropic of your company if your company has entered into a defense contract with the government for something?
    lukewarm707 · 1790357699 · focus · HN ↗
    they should ban it, defense contractors shouldn't be using it XD.
    fable 5.1 doesn't have any option to stop anthropic spying on it. you can't have that...anthropic contractors and actually the rationalist ea clowns themselves don't have security clearance
    hardbass · 1790358003 · focus · HN ↗
    Just saying so doesn't mean shit. The US government should ban you then because I deem you a risk and a terrorist threat.
    lukewarm707 · 1790358698 · focus · HN ↗
    i say it, but you can confirm it yourself.
    not even AWS govcloud can offer fable without anthropic snooping. it is the only model with this problem.
    the pentagon can't force suppliers to require no snooping policies unless they designate the company a risk.
    IX-103 · 1790356242 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    lukewarm707 · 1790358046 · focus · HN ↗
    i think it's a supply chain risk.
    anthropic control it and spy on it, they have ego issues.
    sort of like putin relying on prigozhin.
    john_strinlai · 1790355138 · focus · HN ↗
    >Side note, the Anthropic bots are astroturfing the comments.
    if this is more than "people i disagree with are commenting", you should be messaging hn@ycombinator.com rather than writing it as a side note in your comment.
    hardbass · 1790355234 · focus · HN ↗
    He's probably a maga or adjacent who is pissed Anthropic didn't bend the knee. You don't need to be a shill to hate this horrid abuse of government powers against a private firm.
    kittikitti · 1790355633 · focus · HN ↗
    Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be MAGA, right? You think people who don't like Anthropic are automatically Trump supporters? I have personally experienced how evil Claude is compared with the other options.
    hardbass · 1790355711 · focus · HN ↗
    How is it "evil"?
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790356186 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790356304 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  5. kingstnap · 1790355773 · focus · HN ↗
    The Anthropic guys aren't really nerds. They are more cultists with a "we are the prophets of the machine god" vibe. They refused because it goes against their religious beliefs, not some arrogance like those sovereign citizens.
    You mention inexperience. Historically how many US companies can you name that have been historically named supply chain risks?
2. lelandfe · 1790354263 · focus · HN ↗
  Surely there are simpler ways of not being used.
  Eg. "No."
3. hiddencost · 1790354488 · focus · HN ↗
  No. This also means that no companies that work with th DoD can use anthropic models for any purpose.
  1. VWWHFSfQ · 1790354726 · focus · HN ↗
    Dario wanted to sell a $200 million chat bot to the US military and also dictate how it could be used. The government said no. And because of that Claude also cannot be deployed to the GenAI.mil AI infrastructure. This means that any sensitive work for the DoD that uses Claude will go through Anthropic's infrastructure, not the US military-hosted backend.
    So yes obviously defense contractors are forbidden to use it.
    tmvphil · 1790355223 · focus · HN ↗
    If the government wanted to put iPhones in missiles, and apple said "we won't sell you iPhones to put in missiles" would the correct government response be to say "no government contractor can ever use an iPhone".
    VWWHFSfQ · 1790355868 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD and US military does not allow contractors to use iPhones or anything else that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud. The fact that the Pentagon and Anthropic could not come to an agreement on the usage and deployment to GenAI.mil means that it can't be used.
    The reasons why are incidental to the requirement for defense contractors.
    Jtsummers · 1790356279 · focus · HN ↗
    > The DoD and US military does not allow contractors to use iPhones
    What are you talking about? That's nowhere close to a true statement.
    VWWHFSfQ · 1790356732 · focus · HN ↗
    > that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud
    scottyah · 1790357787 · focus · HN ↗
    Wym "backed by"? This makes no sense.
    Jtsummers · 1790358118 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    Jtsummers · 1790357975 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    rayiner · 1790356135 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure why not? The government is just exercising its power as a purchaser.
    felixgallo · 1790357092 · focus · HN ↗
    'why not'? It's retaliatory beyond all proportionality, for one.
    scottyah · 1790357710 · focus · HN ↗
    They are not "just a purchaser" though. It's the world's most powerful organization that is funded by the people and is supposed to be for the people. I'm all for businesses making FAFO decisions, but expect a lot more here.
    rayiner · 1790358282 · focus · HN ↗
    The fact that it’s a publicly funded entity is more reason for it to adopt hardball tactics, not less. It’s similar to FDR’s comments on public sector unions. When the government is the buyer, it’s even more important to get the best deal and terms possible, because it’s the public’s money’s you’re spending and the public’s interest you’re serving.
    scottyah · 1790363156 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly, setting policy for Americans and American companies is extremely important and should not be ego driven. These deals are to improve America, not to look strong.
    rayiner · 1790383086 · focus · HN ↗
    The U.S. military’s policy has always been to secure the absolute best technology for killing people. So the DOD quite reasonably believes that it’s in America’s interest to have the best technology for building AI killing machines with no restrictions from non-military people on how it’s used.
    felixgallo · 1790434072 · focus · HN ↗
    when you say 'quite reasonably', you are aware that no-human-in-the-loop AI kill chains are war crimes, right?
    krapp · 1790434690 · focus · HN ↗
    "maximum lethality, not tepid legality."
    s1artibartfast · 1790415964 · focus · HN ↗
    There are limits.
    I bet they could get a better deals if the military went and started taking hostages to aid in price negotiation.
    After all, getting the best price is in the public interest.
    apawloski · 1790360812 · focus · HN ↗
    Exercising its power as a purchaser is "not buying it" or "choosing a competitor." Instead, this is arbitrarily and capriciously using an administrative mechanism in a novel way to punish a company.
    rayiner · 1790362294 · focus · HN ↗
    The "administrative mechanism" here is just a way of exercising purchasing control. A private company could do the same thing.
    Jtsummers · 1790362775 · focus · HN ↗
    > A private company could do the same thing.
    Probably not, no private company has the ability to tell all its suppliers "thou shalt not do business with <some other company>". They lack the pull to compel them to do so. The closest would be things like what MS did back in the 90s, and got them in hot water with the anti-trust case against them.
    rayiner · 1790363090 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not what happened here. It was "you can't use <some other company> for stuff you do for us."
    Jtsummers · 1790363676 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair, and still not something most companies can pull off. Again, without risking running into anti-trust laws like MS did.
    Do you seriously think that you can go to all your vendors (if you were a business owner) and tell them, "You can't use Atlassian when working on anything you sell us." How will your business actually compel all those vendors to drop their use of Atlassian for that work? How will you verify compliance and why should any of them sign a contract with you with these restriction? And if they do, how will you avoid anti-trust violations because almost certainly the only way you could talk them into signing such a contract would be to be a massive company throwing your weight around (like MS did with hardware OEMs back in the 90s, among other things).
    felixgallo · 1790433915 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not what happened here and you know this. It was, literal quote, "“[e]ffective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”
    apawloski · 1790362989 · focus · HN ↗
    Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the administrative procedure act, etc.
    s1artibartfast · 1790415720 · focus · HN ↗
    "Lay down on my couch and take off your shirt, or you'll never find work in this town again"
    >I'm just exercising my power as a purchaser.
    No shit. The point is it shouldn't be used that way and that is not what this law is for.
    Should the government be able to designate a company supply chain risk if they don't like the price?
    noahbp · 1790375120 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes-source-reveals-extent-of-system-access/5222658#:~:text=Anthropic%20does,model%2E%22" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes...
    Anthropic did not host the model that the Department of War used. It had, and still has no control over the models it has deployed in classified environments.
  2. Jtsummers · 1790355012 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790355613 · focus · HN ↗
    People have been making this claim because the Secretary of Defense personally issued a statement demanding that "no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic". We're not going to play this absurd game where government officials issue fascist instructions and we all pretend they said something more reasonable instead.
    Jtsummers · 1790356201 · focus · HN ↗
    Except you and many others are accepting what he said as if it were true, that statement is false. And hiddencost and others are just parroting it instead of describing the real situation.
    This designation means Athropic's systems can't be used in DOD work, but many companies that work with the DOD also do work outside that. That separate work is not restricted with respect to the use of Anthropic's systems. Repeating a lie as if it were true is just dumb, it helps spread that lie.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790356873 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    fragmede · 1790360468 · focus · HN ↗
    > or impeach him
    Well, that was attempted...
    Jtsummers · 1790360741 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you don't like that, and would prefer to discuss a lawful supply chain risk designation, you should convince him to retract the statements or impeach him.
    You're crediting him with much more power than he has, and somehow you think I'm sanewashing by calling a lie a lie. What you're doing is far worse, you're believing his lies.
    Anyways, the statement is false, at least the extent to which being designated a supply chain risk can impact who does business with Anhtropic. There's no need for him to retract it or even to impeach him over it, because any company with a lawyer and a reasonable separation of their commercial and defense work will be able to determine that they can still do business with Anthropic despite the designation. It'll just have to be confined, so long as the designation stands, to their commercial work.
    handoflixue · 1790375256 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump legally doesn't have the authority to start the Iran War.
    I suppose you would have us believe that, therefore, we are not at war with Iran?
    Just because his statement has no legal basis does not mean that it is unreasonable to believe it will be enforced as-stated.
    Indeed, this insistence on prioritizing the written law over the empirical reality borders on the delusional - if concentration camps were not the official policy of Nazi Germany, would you also insist we are making some mistake by "believing the lies" about their existence?
    I just don't get what sort of point you're trying to make here - do you really think that the current US government cannot possibly cause problems for people that violate their unofficial edicts?
    Do you really think a sensible legal department is going to advise their clients to antagonize the administration by using Claude for their "unrelated" commercial work?
    scottyah · 1790358090 · focus · HN ↗
    If AWS employees use Claude to build govcloud, it is a violation of supply-chain. Either Amazon, Microsoft, and Google require their employees to stop using claude or the DoD has to migrate off of these cloud providers.
    Or these companies have to completely split the govcloud work from its commercial offerings (which defeats the whole point).
    Jtsummers · 1790358206 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a DOD related system though. If an Amazon employee uses Claude to change shopping cart behavior, it's not a problem though and Amazon has no reason to stop those employees from using Claude given the supply chain risk designation, except out of an abundance of caution or to kiss Hegseth's ass.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790358892 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mpyne · 1790380169 · focus · HN ↗
    > What if an Amazon employee uses Claude to develop the S3 storage service, which is a core product offering unrelated to the DoD but also something that will be provided to the DoD in govcloud?
    Honestly that question has been open for as long as GovCloud has been around. I've used it myself as an exercise in pushing within the Navy to adopt public cloud where security requirements permit, rather than forcing everything onto GovCloud.
    After all, if it's the same S3 either way then the real point of security isn't the Amazon datacenter employee changing out dead hard disks in a physical GovCloud datacenter, but the S3 service team developers who are frequently not even American citizens, but whose code may very well go on to touch the most sensitive data the nation generates.
    scottyah · 1790359327 · focus · HN ↗
    That depends on what "change shopping cart behavior" entails though. Sure, if you edit the icon you're pretty safe, but what if the change is a fix so if two people are adding things to the same cart on separate computers, the page will get updated, so they swap out to their webhook library and make a couple edits, but that library is also what powers the UI for the AWS consoles in govcloud?
    Now you're making changes to the source code used in govcloud using claude, a clear supply chain violation.
    It's a very wishy-washy area right now, and the branches are all struggling to figure out how to work around these laws that were mostly intended to keep jobs in the USA but are now hampering productivity. One example is that DoD contractors can't use open source software that has a non-us developer as a core maintainer. Obviously that's extremely hard to track and it's mostly ignored. Pete definitely bit off more than he realized in his effort to seem cool and get what he wanted.
    wat10000 · 1790380149 · focus · HN ↗
    A statement about consequences made by someone in power is not a lie just because it goes beyond what the law says.
    Jtsummers · 1790381243 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
4. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790354633 · focus · HN ↗
  Evidentially not - Anthropic want to do business with the US military, but on their own terms, telling the military what they can and cannot use it for.
  1. hardbass · 1790354916 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that a problem? Are there any special rules (genuinely curious) that allow the military to hijack the management of a private firm?
    sieabahlpark · 1790355372 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    shimman · 1790355372 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, for national security being the biggest one. Also Congress can do whatever they want if they desired. If Congress mandated that all social media companies have to become workplace democracies, that's totally fine and legal.
    We've forgotten what it means to run a society, we're allowed to change rules how we see fit whenever we want to. Only the elites exercise this power, but people have it too.
    hardbass · 1790355584 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not good for the people. Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights. Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone. Governments eroding them show they can do the same to you willy nilly.
    miyoji · 1790357143 · focus · HN ↗
    > Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone.
    In theory, maybe. In reality, this is a privilege for a very small number of rich people.
    > Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights.
    How absurd. Food safety regulations don't erode my rights one bit, but they do erode the rights of companies to negligently poison me. I guess I'm losing the right to start a food company that poisons people, but I'm happy to forfeit that right in exchange for not being poisoned. We could extend this list of reasonable tradeoffs in which we all exchange the right to treat people poorly for the right not be treated poorly, and we all would benefit.
    Except the people who want to sell poisoned food, those people will be worse off. I am okay with that.
    hardbass · 1790357900 · focus · HN ↗
    Would you like if your company was deemed a supply chain risk if you were in negotiation with the government and they didn't like the terms?
    miyoji · 1790438997 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not arguing that the government's actions towards Anthropic are fair, but you're making the argument that no government should ever be allowed to designate any company as a supply chain risk, and that's ludicrous.
    shimman · 1790362003 · focus · HN ↗
    No, companies have routinely killed millions of Americans for profit. I do not trust companies at all. Attacking companies to provide for Americans has always benefited society as a whole and has always had vast majority of support from voters.
    Also what private property? Most Americans can't afford to buy homes and are being priced out of owning property entirely.
    Corporations have eroded the livelihood of Americans more than the government ever has.
    There is only one class that fights against raising the minimum wage, or establishing a 32 hour workweek, or enacting medicare for all, or providing a society free of pollution and it's always been the corporate class.
    There has been no dominating force that has killed more American civilians than the American corporation.
    Corporations can't even regulate themselves and you're trying to argue that the true enemy is a democratic government? Come on man. These types of retorts does not convince voters (so please continue saying them). Actually go out there and do some deep canvassing.
    People rightfully hate corporations because they are the last vestige of monarchs, oligarchies, and authoritarians that are allowed to ruin + destroy our lives with little repercussions.
    One just has to look at the situation of our deteriorating food safety inspections (that were hallowed out by Musk + DOGE goons FYI) to know that corporations absolutely do not care about public safety over profits. Or health insurance companies that are incentivized to deny Americans life saving care for shareholder profits.
    We have a sick society and it's mostly due to the unabashed influence of corporations over our lives.
    ---
    Also in other comments you seem to be under the impression that corporations should be legally allowed to do what they want with zero government interference? Why do you believe such things over concepts of democracy or regulation?
    Society is allowed to tell someone no, not everyone consents to your beleifs.
    hardbass · 1790362165 · focus · HN ↗
    I fully believe in democracy and regulation. Democracy cannot exist without capitalism and private property. At no point did I say companies should be free to do anything, I said companies should have freedom to enter or not in contracts under any terms they wish with anyone they want.
    Regarding housing crisis, its the "small people" who cause this. I don't know of any large corporation that is NIMBY. If I had it, I'd steamroll NIMBY's houses and declare them a blight, they should agree with it since they regularly call various constructions blights. Places that tries building more housing saw reductions in prices. Its not the fault of corporations if people don't want houses built.
    You can only say corporations "killed" people in abstract ways, governments not only have the legal power to but have routinely murdered millions very directly and physically.
    Even if you believed corporations are authoritarian, its still better to have competing sources of power, not all corporations will always align with the government so it is better for powerful opposition to exist if government turns shit.
    You also mentioned monarchs in your list, fascist italy is a direct example in my favor, the king's ego and his own self interest in his power caused him to continually give friction to Mussolini thus weakening the dictator.
    hardbass · 1790363623 · focus · HN ↗
    If you got the impression I am some kind of libertarian or anarchist, that would be a wrong impression. I probably fall somewhere along the spectrum toward social democracy.
    ThunderSizzle · 1790355374 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the answer is the military finds another vendor willing to deal, or move it in house.
    It's not like Anthropic will be nationalized any more than the bankrupted auto companies of 2008.
    hardbass · 1790355496 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't care what the military does. This is pure thuggery and abuse of the rights of private firms. Any time you contract with the government and they don't like your terms, will they designate you a threat?
    rayiner · 1790356064 · focus · HN ↗
    In this context, that designation just means that the DOD won’t use your product and it’s suppliers can’t use your product for DOD-facing activity. That’s not “thuggery” it’s something any buyer can do. Walmart or whatever could do it too.
    joshuamorton · 1790369625 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that textbook Tortious interference with a business relationship?
    rayiner · 1790371015 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    s1artibartfast · 1790414845 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it is thuggery. If DOD doesn't want to use anthropic as vendor, thats fine.
    Prohibiting contractors and departments from using it to produce products well within anthropic terms of service has no risk.
    It is petty retaliation and strong arming.
    Imagine if Ford said they weren't interested in building tanks, and then the DoD said employees and contractors can't use Ford for any purpose, because they are a supply chain risk
    ThunderSizzle · 1790419503 · focus · HN ↗
    If Ford told the DoD you can't use the tanks they bought however they need to, and had a kill switch in it in case they wanted to cut the DoD off, then that would obviously be a supply chain risk.
    The military and it's suppliers need mitigate risk, and that includes suppliers intentionally causing harm to soldiers on the front lines, or in the backend logistics supply chain.
    Honestly, every company should be treating Anthropic and OpenAI as supply chain risks, and should completely avoid dealing with them.
    Timon3 · 1790426520 · focus · HN ↗
    > If Ford told the DoD you can't use the tanks they bought however they need to, and had a kill switch in it in case they wanted to cut the DoD off, then that would obviously be a supply chain risk.
    This is a misrepresentation of the situation. Anthropic did NOT sell something to the DoD and then restrict usage - the DoD purchased their offering fully aware of this clause.
    ThunderSizzle · 1790464367 · focus · HN ↗
    The ability by the supplier is the problem, regardless of there is an upfront clause or not. The upfront clause is the problem
    s1artibartfast · 1790467990 · focus · HN ↗
    That's true for every company and every individual involved with the dod. They can all put guns or pencils down and refuse at a future date for a unspecified reason.
    That has nothing to do with supply chain risk designation. That comes from sabotage
    s1artibartfast · 1790434642 · focus · HN ↗
    They won't because Trumps family has billions invested in OpenAI.
    stusmall · 1790355530 · focus · HN ↗
    AFAIK it wasn't in play here, but yes, we do allow that to a degree via the Defense Production Act
    rayiner · 1790355972 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not a problem. But it’s also not a problem for the DOD to decide that it doesn’t want to use anthropic or have its suppliers use anthropic for DOD matters. The DOD didn’t ban private citizens from using Anthropic. You can sell in your own terms but the DOD can also buy in its own terms.
    bitexploder · 1790357367 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the funny thing to me. I hate diving into politics here on HN, but this has such a rank smell to it. Trump's comments about Dario. His insane propaganda video about how we will never be communist / Marxist. In the same breath our government is bribing people with offers of $$ (the $5,000 checks) and essentially bullying to outright moving towards saying this technology is so powerful we will just have to seize it for our own use.
    It is impossible to miss the absolute hypocrisy of this moment and how people and corporations are supposedly free, but if you happen to be of interest to the government they will try to casually ruin you. It has always been this way, people just haven't noticed because it flies under the radar most of the time when the govern crushes some smaller enterprise or another because it got in their way or didn't play by their rules.
    It seems simple to me. Anthropic is a private company. If you don't like it fix the laws or don't buy from them.
    rayiner · 1790357603 · focus · HN ↗
    You're overlooking the critical difference between the government-as-government and the government-as-purchaser. You have to play on Walmart's terms--which are draconian and exacting--to sell to Walmart. Why should the DOD be any different when it comes to stuff the DOD is buying or indirectly paying its contractors to buy?
    Yeah, the DOD is such a huge purchaser that it can "ruin you" by blacklisting you if you don't play by its terms. The same is true about Walmart if you're a grocery supplier, Apple if you make electronics components, etc. Private companies absolutely exercise their power like that.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790358339 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm intensely skeptical that Walmart has clauses in its contracts saying that no supplier may use FooCorp software in the process of delivering its goods. If they do I would definitely call that an abuse of corporate power.
    folocitoan · 1790370648 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mpyne · 1790379775 · focus · HN ↗
    They're not allowed to use it for military work, precisely so that the military supply chain cannot be broken by an unaffiliated private contractor acting at its own behest.
    The Federal government often imposes terms on its contractors that specify what sub-contractors are allowed to do, including "flow down" requirements that ensure these terms are themselves enforced recursively all the way down to leaf suppliers.
    None of those amount to a ban, after all private companies are also able to do the same thing, and often do. E.g. when Apple requires its suppliers to pursue clean energy efforts as in <a href="https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/09/apple-advances-supplier-clean-energy-commitments/" rel="nofollow">https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/09/apple-advances-suppli...
    Turn_Trout · 1790499110 · focus · HN ↗
    > None of those amount to a ban
    Please check your facts. Hegseth originally stated that it would apply to ALL usage by companies that work with the military.
    [1] <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-declares-anthropic-supply-chain-risk/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-declares-anthropic-supp...
    mpyne · 1790564232 · focus · HN ↗
    And the fact is that he had to reverse that position because it was not supportable by the statutory law he was trying to use. So the DoW policy changed.
    I'm a big fan of checking the facts, which is why I encourage you to stay current on the discussion. Companies that do defense work are already familiar with the need to setup corporate structures to ensure that the blast radius of changes to FAR, DFARS, statutory requirements etc. don't reach the main corporate entity.
    Like, the whole term "defense industrial base" is a known category treated as "critical infrastructure" by the U.S. government for years now: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/defense-industrial-base-sector" rel="nofollow">https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security... and <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47751#_Toc192775742" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47751#_Toc192775742
    The thing that is novel here is that requirements traditionally focused on protecting for undue linkage with potentially-hostile foreign sources are being applied against Anthropic. But it's also novel that Anthropic is trying to apply conditions of use restrictions through its contract with the military.
    I don't personally feel that's novel enough to warrant a ban across the whole supply chain, but that's been the net effect of quite a few other FAR and DFARS restrictions over the years, which have caused companies to either exit the defense space or avoid selling into it in the first place.
    0xdeadbeefbabe · 1790356266 · focus · HN ↗
    The customer is always right. It's more of a tradition.
    topspin · 1790358545 · focus · HN ↗
    "Are there any special rules"
    Yes. Paragraph #1, sentence #1 of the US Constitution: "provide for the common defence[sic]". This is further elaborated upon in other original Constitution articles and subsequent amendments.
    From that, we derive a long, storied history of things, among the more recent of which, and the operative matter here, is the Defense Production Act circa 1950.
    The US is fundamentally based on the obligation of mutual military defense, and delegates the authority to call military balls and strikes, such as who will and will not be permitted to contract with the US military, exclusively to POTUS. Anthropic et al. are way out of their depth when they imagine their "terms and conditions" imbue them with some sort of military veto power in the US. Trump's action here, given his nature, is actually moderate: he could take this much further if he wishes.
  2. theptip · 1790355977 · focus · HN ↗
    Every private citizen or corporation gets to do business (or not) with the military on their own terms. This is the difference between totalitarianism and a free country.
    Anthropic’s position is also known as “having terms of service”.
    To be clear the existing, signed ToS terms that Trump balked at were:
    1. No mass surveillance of US civilians - illegal but we have all read the Snowden papers.
    2. Fully unmanned kill chains on autonomous weapons - Anthropic have even stated they will support this eventually, they just didn’t think their models were ready and didn’t want the obvious, inevitable blowback.
    The DoD is within its rights to cancel the contract if it doesn’t like the terms that it previously signed.
    andrewla · 1790356838 · focus · HN ↗
    The concern, I think, in its most generous terms, is that they can't buy Anthropic's service the way the could, say, a wrench, because Anthropic can decide at any point to disable the military's ability (even transitively, through other vendors) to use their models if they determined that they do not like what the military is doing with that or if it violates their interpretation of the terms of service.
    This seems like a definitional supply chain risk.
    Firaxus · 1790358210 · focus · HN ↗
    By that expansive definition, any cloud software provider can do the same thing and so should also be a supply chain risk.
    This whole fiasco is happening because the defense dept wanted to use anthropic models in a way not allowed in the existing contract. Anthropic stuck to the contract, and the def dept tried to be punitive about it.
    If they can’t get what they want from the seller, fine go to a different seller, but the supply chain risk is just government overreach.
    andrewla · 1790359006 · focus · HN ↗
    I think I mostly agree here -- any cloud provider or frankly SaaS system carries a similar risk. The question is whether they want to explicitly make that part of their terms of service, and in addition have made public statements about their willingness to apply those terms of service.
    AWS GovCloud I believe promises the opposite. They could still do it, in terms of the capability itself, but then they'd be subject to both civil, criminal, and possibly even military consequences. Whereas Anthropic would be shielded from those consequences by the terms of their agreement (presumably; I'm not up to speed on the specifics of their contractual demands. This is just based on the context from this article and the previous appeals case that ruled against the government).
    theptip · 1790363818 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not the definition of a supply chain risk, this is:
    > FASCSA definition (41 U.S.C. § 4713(k)(6)): "Supply chain risk" means the risk that any person may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, maintenance, disposition, or retirement of covered articles so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate the function, use, or operation of the covered articles or information stored or transmitted on the covered articles.
    This topic is a mind-killer, lots of uninformed opinion swamping the news, and it's hard to get actual signal on the technical questions at hand. (And, I think it's naive to believe that the government is actually concerned about the precise legal definitions; remember Hegseth decreed that no government sub-contractors would be allowed to transact with Anthropic, despite there being no legal basis for this?)
    > Anthropic can decide at any point to disable the military's ability
    If you're referring to the claims of a killswitch, Anthropic testified under oath that they don't have one. This has been thoroughly covered, e.g. <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/22/anthropic-no-kill-switch-ai-classified-settings" rel="nofollow">https://www.axios.com/2026/04/22/anthropic-no-kill-switch-ai.... Anthropic provides the weights, they get run in DoD's secure enclave. There's no "phone home".
    If you mean more generally, that DoD might breach a contract and then have that contract cancelled going forwards, then yes - this is literally how all SaaS contracts work. And it's very clearly not what the quoted text above refers to.
    The way this works in a non-totalitarian country is, the government says "I want new terms and you won't give them to me; instead I will take my business elsewhere". And indeed this is what happened, DoD now has contracts with Google and OpenAI for equivalent capabilities.
    Just to engage on your terms, with the actual concern you're raising; I would say rather than "FASCSA supply chain risk" a better way of thinking about it is "vendor lock-in". DoD absolutely should not rely on a single vendor for these kinds of capabilities. And most defense spending explicitly contemplates this already. This should be and has been solved through basic procurement practices.
    andrewla · 1790368032 · focus · HN ↗
    This is great context and I feel that this is bringing in a lot of information that I wasn't aware of.
    If what you're saying is true, then there is truly no supply chain risk other than the risk of civil action against the government for violation of terms of service. That seems like a rather weak point on which to balance a "supply chain" risk though.
    theptip · 1790372426 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair and give the best steelman of the government’s position, see the ruling, it’s quite clear. I linked better analysis in <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49849556">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49849556
    The TL;DR is that this was actually decided on the principle that Anthropic can “manipulate” the defense systems by training Claude to refuse to take certain actions.
    This feels like a parallel construction to me, it wasn’t reported AFAICT at the time of the original drama.
    But yeah, the decision in OP has nothing to do with the contractual terms that everyone has been debating upthread.
    noahbp · 1790374913 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthropic did not have access to the servers where their models were deployed. They were under the control of AWS and Palantir, and they could neither disable, nor modify the model's behavior.
    <a href="https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes-source-reveals-extent-of-system-access/5222658#:~:text=Anthropic%20does,model%2E%22" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes...
5. [deleted] · 1790354641 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
6. fnordpiglet · 1790354942 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic isn’t aligned with MAGA political ideology so they found an excuse to abuse power against them, more or less. The excuse was because Anthropic prohibits the use of their models for autonomous killing without a human in the loop they were declared a threat to national security on par with Iran or North Korea from a supply chain perspective in the military. OpenAI then rushed in and volunteered to build the slaughterbots ASAP, likely specially tuned to whomever Trump has taken a disliking to in his ambien stupors. Welcome to the future!
7. wyager · 1790355680 · focus · HN ↗
  The Pentagon is trying to bully contractors into also not using Anthropic's models
8. tcdent · 1790355688 · focus · HN ↗
  As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
  Which sounds sensible on the surface, until you realize that all military organizations have extensive experience with that exact question, and have spent centuries refining their practices. Deferring that to a private company is actually a major regression and a concerning role to pass on to the public regardless.
  FWIW I am not pro military, but it's a prominent part of human culture and not going away anytime soon. I do understand the nature of professions, however, and only one of these groups has made the interpretation of this question their specialization.
  1. daveidol · 1790356307 · focus · HN ↗
    You raise an interesting point. Although wouldn’t Anthropic be the best experts on when a model would be most applicable or likely to falter?
    I guess my opinion would really depend on the exact wording and details of the arrangement. Lots of people jumping in with strong stances based on pretty limited details.
    tcdent · 1790356675 · focus · HN ↗
    On faltering: the US Military already has rules around the use of automated systems for this type decision making. This is not a new concept to them by any means, and currently it always incorporates a human decision.
    garciasn · 1790356947 · focus · HN ↗
    But, yet, because the technology has advanced so very rapidly and large bureaucratic organizations cannot keep up, we almost went to war w/China because of it.
    I am going into this eyes open and realize that we did indeed stop it before we hit the button, but when there is immense political pressures over career military experts, we may end up with someone ignoring those HITL stops.
    sfink · 1790370443 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthropic agreed to uses that involve a human decision, so this is a non sequitur.
    The whole conflict is specifically about uses that do not involve a human decision. The DoD agreed to a contract that said it wouldn't use Anthropic for that, and then tried to change the terms.
    Incidentally, the DoD used Claude in its decision that resulted in killing 120 children at an elementary school for girls. The Pentagon concluded that there was human review (which would mean that it fell within the contract's terms) but that the review was hollowed out (which could mean that it was a violation of the contract).
  2. hardbass · 1790356572 · focus · HN ↗
    Frankly I would trust Anthropic much more than the US military with human lives.
    scottyah · 1790357555 · focus · HN ↗
    Would you still in 10yrs? 30? When all the current employees have left, and anti-Western people make most of the decisions?
    hardbass · 1790357754 · focus · HN ↗
    Anti western people are already in the government now. I'd worry about the present than future hypotheticals.
    esafak · 1790358838 · focus · HN ↗
    Which part of the military? I would trust the rank and file. The commander in chief?
    hardbass · 1790358964 · focus · HN ↗
    Whichever part caused the girl school to be hit. Which has to be multiple levels for it to occur.
    myko · 1790360134 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD is blaming AI for this (you are of course right though)
    hardbass · 1790360223 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthropic is vindicated in that you need oversight over AI being used to kill people, the USA military clearly showed itself incapable of wielding that responsibility.
    karmasimida · 1790361563 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t, for profit company you say, nah
    Analemma_ · 1790362354 · focus · HN ↗
    The US military has assassinated American citizens with no judicial review, Anthropic has not.
  3. felixgallo · 1790357000 · focus · HN ↗
    you understand wildly incorrectly; please go and do some research.
  4. cubefox · 1790357287 · focus · HN ↗
    > As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
    This is false. Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.
    tcdent · 1790357753 · focus · HN ↗
    > [Anthropic] would not permit its technology to power fully autonomous weapons without human oversight over targeting and firing decisions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the Pentagon should have unrestricted access to AI systems for “any lawful purpose” and that a private contractor should not be permitted to dictate how the military can use its technology.
    It's about them maintaining an interpretation of law at all.
    Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."
    <a href="https://www.pearlcohen.com/anthropic-sues-department-of-defense-over-supply-chain-risk-designation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pearlcohen.com/anthropic-sues-department-of-defe...
    simianwords · 1790361722 · focus · HN ↗
    well if you were Anthropic and you didn't want the government using your technology in these ways, how would you phrase it? What else would you have done?
    cubefox · 1790362077 · focus · HN ↗
    > Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."
    The DoW actually used AI in the Iran war, which led to them attacking a school and killing more than a hundred childrem. That's exactly what Anthropic wanted them to prevent. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-iran-school-attack/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-iran-school-attack/
    tcdent · 1790370529 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD has been using AI for engagement since the 80s. Maven, the system used in your example has been active since 2017.
    None of those systems pull the trigger. They assemble data for human review.
    noahbp · 1790374596 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem to be misunderstanding the facts. Claude was already used by the US Military, under an existing contract between Anthropic and the US Department of War.
    The core dispute was the US Military deciding it needed to renegotiate this contract, but without Anthropic's two red lines: No fully autonomous weapons (i.e., zero humans in the loop), and no mass domestic surveillance.
  5. SillyUsername · 1790358035 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, that's exactly why they used AI to blow up a school murdering a load of kids.
    That kind of extensive experience.
    Anthropic did the morally right thing and are being punished for it. The case in point justifies their position.
    As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
  6. everforward · 1790360081 · focus · HN ↗
    Militaries have a lot of experience, and an exceptionally poor track record.
    I don’t remember the last war that didn’t have credible evidence of war crimes occurring. Were bombing civilian infrastructure in Iran, Iraq had Abu Ghraib among all the Collateral Damage stuff, the Highway of Death in the Gulf was probably a war crime, Vietnam had My Lai, WWII was the advent of carpet bombing civilian infrastructure. I can’t think of any for Korea, but I also know very little so that doesn’t say much.
    We still haven’t charged anyone for the second strike on that fishing boat in South America, and I haven’t heard a single rationale for why that’s not a war crime other than “fog of war”.
    The US doesn’t even really have a meaningful system for finding and prosecuting these, because we aren’t signatories for the ICC and have a bill saying we’ll invade if they charge one of our service members with a war crime. We aren’t basically the furthest thing from having any experience prosecuting war crimes. I can probably count on my fingers the number of cases we’ve tried. We rarely charge our own service members, and we usually kill foreign combatants rather than capture and charge them.
    tcdent · 1790361030 · focus · HN ↗
    A poor track record compared to who? The Romans?
    War includes death by design. The trajectory is trending toward less unjustified death.
    daedrdev · 1790378853 · focus · HN ↗
    The US could carpet bomb their enemies like they did in WW2, instead they pursue one of the lowest civilian casualty methods of in the history of the world, and nobody even cares because somehow that’s not good enough
    whatisthiseven · 1790408995 · focus · HN ↗
    What makes you think these targeted strikes are any better? Did the school girls say, "o, but at least our entire city wasn't carpet bombed like an obvious war crime, instead we were drone strikes in such a morally ambiguous way. O well"
    No.
    And why did America have so many enemies???
    Maybe because we keep finding excuses to invent them, and then does hundreds of "morally grey" bombings. But at least it wasn't another Vietnam, right?
    What a low bar.
    everforward · 1790460043 · focus · HN ↗
    Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime because the end state is the same as bombing civilians. Killing power shuts down hospitals and emergency responders (generators run out eventually) and desalination plants. The military is largely unphased, they’re the first ones to get gas for generators.
    Also, this is carpet bombing. Carpet bombing is the targeting of civilian infrastructure with effectively willful ignorance of the collateral damage.
    We started a war knowing the only way to win was either boots on the ground or war-criming our adversary into submission. We don’t get to pretend our hands are tied and we have to send out the bombers. We don’t have to do this because Iraq forces us to, we have to do this because we elected a man who can barely read Post It notes and ignored half a century of military intelligence. We are at fault for every dollar of damage caused to infrastructure and every life lost.
  7. folocitoan · 1790370458 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  8. tastyface · 1790373490 · focus · HN ↗
    120 Iranian schoolgirls would have loved to hear this lecture.
  9. noahbp · 1790374303 · focus · HN ↗
    >As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
    This is not at all what happened. The existing contract that Anthropic had with the government had two red lines: No autonomous weapons (i.e., do not build Skynet with Claude), and no mass domestic surveillance.
    Anthropic did not, and does not want, any case-by-case veto power over the US Military's use of their AI models. The red lines were negotiated ahead of time.
  10. adastra22 · 1790405608 · focus · HN ↗
    Downvoted for misinformation, likely out of ignorance, despite the reasonable argument made on top of it. Anthropic was not asking for the ability to review and block particular uses. Those are classified and wouldn’t even be running on Anthropic’s servers. They just wanted the government to promise not to use it for killing people without a human in the loop.
  11. trashface · 1790469629 · focus · HN ↗
    > Which sounds sensible on the surface, until you realize that all military organizations have extensive experience with that exact question
    Tell that to a certain school in Iran
9. cubefox · 1790357186 · focus · HN ↗
  No it's not. Anthropic didn't want an AI to make battlefield decision on who gets killed because it's too unreliable. That doesn't mean they don't want AI used in the military supply chain.
  And it also doesn't mean that Anthropic is a supply chain risk merely for not wanting AI to be the active decision maker in live or death situations in war.
  And Anthropic's objection was recently confirmed: the US military blew up a school in Iran due to an AI error, and killed more than a hundred kids.
10. bradleybuda · 1790363834 · focus · HN ↗
  And crucially, the DoD, through the normal procurement process, agreed to Anthropic’s terms and made the purchase. Much later, the Secretary of Defense threw a political fit and tried to change the terms.
11. sfink · 1790369849 · focus · HN ↗
  You're skipping the supply chain risk designation, which is an extraordinary and punitive measure. Without that part, you'd be correct that this is a nothingburger. "Government decides to not renew contract with corporation X and goes with Y instead" is not headline news.
12. folocitoan · 1790369970 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
13. vayup · 1790372580 · focus · HN ↗
  They also effectively said that military contractors and their subcontractors cannot use Anthropic - that's a significant part of the economy. I mean technically, they can use Anthropic for non-military work. But in practice, they will choose not use it at all, since it's a better approach to show compliance.
14. DirkH · 1790530679 · focus · HN ↗
  I can build a super bioweapon that can kill millions and I don't trust the US military to use it responsibly.
  The US military asks me to build the super bioweapon. I say no thanks, please ask someone else, but happy to keep selling you bioweapons I think is safe enough.
  I get designated an evil unamerican supply chain risk that nobody in the US military may do business with even though I was still happy to sell my safer bioweapons.
  That is the tl;dr
kittikitti · 1790354413 · focus · HN ↗
I agree with its designation. The security scans from Claude Mythos have been highly suspicious, wrong, and with a significant false positive rate. Claude also directly causes conflict within teams through excessive utility of "git blame" which weaponizes everyone against each other until only Claude has control. I've had very bad experiences with Claude and only Claude.
1. majorchord · 1790355099 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think the majority of Claude users would agree with your assessment.
  1. fnordpiglet · 1790355278 · focus · HN ↗
    I think any user of Opus 5 would - it was literally a terrorist. Thank god they retired it for 5.5 superseding it!!
  2. kittikitti · 1790355706 · focus · HN ↗
    I never claimed they would and don't you think anyone who calls themselves a "Claude user" would be biased?
    colejohnson66 · 1790356478 · focus · HN ↗
    Just because someone uses a product doesn't mean they 100% agree with everything about it. I use Windows but can still complain about Microsoft being "Microslop".
  3. myko · 1790360344 · focus · HN ↗
    or anyone who ever used `git blame` and knew what it did
    lmao trying to imagine the scenario GP envisions as they "typed" together their comment
2. scottyah · 1790355847 · focus · HN ↗
  > Claude also directly causes conflict within teams through excessive utility of "git blame"
  Lol wtf, do you think nobody here knows how to use git? this is like a Fox News comment, you are not a developer and are trying to spread fear because a word was used jokingly. "git blame" is just a diff tool.
  You cannot use git blame to cause conflict.
  1. hardbass · 1790356070 · focus · HN ↗
    He is literally calling Claude "evil" in another comment. Probably for the "reasons" outlined here. I am at a complete loss for words really.
  2. lukewarm707 · 1790357380 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
3. aetch · 1790357359 · focus · HN ↗
  Found the person who got blamed by Claude
HarHarVeryFunny · 1790354450 · focus · HN ↗
Supply chain risk seems a massive over-reaction, but understandable that the government doesn't want to commit to Anthropic controlled software for any critical military application if they can't 100% rely on Anthropic support in being able to use it as they see fit.
1. timcobb · 1790354553 · focus · HN ↗
  > 100% rely on
  that's the mobster-loyalty mentality, and it's not how successful (read: desirable for the most people) governments function
  1. p-e-w · 1790355193 · focus · HN ↗
    Every government on Earth has legislation that allows it to force companies (and citizens) to do its bidding under certain circumstances. That’s pretty much the definition of a government.
    pixl97 · 1790355612 · focus · HN ↗
    The point is this not being the first tool in the toolbox. Other competitors have shown they are more than willing to build weapons of death (OpenAI) so as the government you put them as the preferred contractor.
    What the orange turd is going is rather petty bullshit in a market where many options exist.
    cindyllm · 1790356834 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    all_factz · 1790356085 · focus · HN ↗
    Then the government should have invoked that legislation.
    HarHarVeryFunny · 1790356847 · focus · HN ↗
    They don't need to - there are alternatives, and do you really want to do business with a supplier that is hostile to your needs unless you have to?
    CodeWriter23 · 1790357829 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD is empowered to determine its own supply chain risks by...wait for it...legislation.
    p-e-w · 1790383687 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s exactly what happened here, and the judiciary just confirmed that it was indeed done in accordance with the law.
  2. lukewarm707 · 1790356897 · focus · HN ↗
    yes, but anthropic really is an exception.
    it is a bizarre company which also inherits the authoritarian infrastructure of cloud services.
    that is: remote control of the software, spying on customers, etc.
    orangecat · 1790361284 · focus · HN ↗
    remote control of the software, spying on customers, etc.
    The military ran Anthropic models on their own infrastructure; Anthropic had no access to it. "They might disable Claude in the middle of an emergency" was never a possibility.
    lukewarm707 · 1790365244 · focus · HN ↗
    DOD used claude via palantir. palantir runs on AWS, supposedly DOD IL6.
    anthropic did a prigozhin, got cocky and went behind the DOD's back to palantir and asked them questions about the use of claude.
    a big tyrant does not like to be usurped or undermined by a little tyrant.
    after pissing off the DOD by trying to get palantir to rat out classified deployments, dario went to the pentagon and behaved like himself in front of pete hegseth. anthropic was not going to come back from that.
    fable is on AWS govcloud. but anthropic get the chat logs. specifically section F: [<a href="https://www.anthropic.com/legal/service-specific-terms" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/legal/service-specific-terms]. this is an anthropic requirement.
    notably, fable is not on IL5 or above. the best you can get is palantir AIP opus 5 in AWS IL5. i suspect, because of anthropic demanding that AWS rat out its customers.
2. ajross · 1790354876 · focus · HN ↗
  > understandable that the government doesn't want to commit to Anthropic controlled software
  But that's not at issue here. Obviously everyone agrees that the Pentagon can issue RFQ's to whatever specifications it wants. They can buy whatever they want, for the same reason that you or I are free to sell whatever we want.
  The subject at hand is an attempt to use national security regulatory power to coerce Anthropic into selling a product it doesn't want to sell.
  1. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790356362 · focus · HN ↗
    > The subject at hand is an attempt to use national security regulatory power to coerce Anthropic into selling a product it doesn't want to sell.
    It would be naive to think that a private company could deny the government access to any tech if they want it for military or surveillance etc usage. In this case the government isn't forcing Anthropic to do it, they have alternatives and are perhaps making an example of Anthropic for refusing.
    You could even make a case that the "supply chain risk" designation DOES make sense. If Anthropic are opposed to certain uses of their software, then doesn't that potentially impact companies that are part of the supply chain as well?
    cmdli · 1790366445 · focus · HN ↗
    There are plenty of companies that are opposed to certain operations of the US military and refuse to sell to the US military on those grounds. None of them are considered a supply chain risk because that's not what a supply chain risk is.
    A supply chain risk is specifically an entity that is likely to maliciously sabotage the US military's operations, such as Chinese companies that are controlled by the CCP. It is not simply a decision to "not buy from this company", but rather a wide-ranging decision that this particular company is a national security threat.
    Jtsummers · 1790366613 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    folocitoan · 1790370824 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. parineum · 1790357436 · focus · HN ↗
    How is this coersion?
    Is it coersion when people refuse to buy anything but free range chicken eggs?
    DoD just refuses to buy a product. Anthropic just lost a customer because their product didn't fit the requirements of the customer.
    knollimar · 1790358120 · focus · HN ↗
    They're saying no one who works with them can eat non free range chickens too, no?
    parineum · 1790365146 · focus · HN ↗
    And all those companies can choose not to work with them too.
    ajross · 1790369321 · focus · HN ↗
    > And all those companies can choose not to work with them too.
    Right, and if they chose independently to do so it would be their right. What makes this problematic is that "all those companies" did not choose to not to work with the Pentagon (or with Anthropic spefically, for that matter). They were compelled to using using a regulatory tool which was originally intended to combat hostile foreign espionage.
    That's not a "choice" made by those third party suppliers. The Pentagon is using the Supply Chain Risk designation as a contract negotiating tactic.
    Jtsummers · 1790365596 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
3. noahbp · 1790375545 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic has no control over their deployed models in classified environments. That is managed by Palantir and government clouds. <a href="https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes-source-reveals-extent-of-system-access/5222658#:~:text=Anthropic%20does,model%2E%22" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes...
  This is not an abstract disagreement at all. The red lines that the Department of War wanted to cross were made extremely clear: They want to build Skynet with Claude, and build a mass domestic surveillance system. Now they will have to make do with building those two systems with Gemini and ChatGPT.
  1. mpyne · 1790380500 · focus · HN ↗
    > The red lines that the Department of War wanted to cross were made extremely clear: They want to build Skynet with Claude, and build a mass domestic surveillance system.
    They claim they want to use AI for "any lawful purpose". They didn't go further to say that they want to build either Skynet or engage in mass surveillance.
    Anthropic wanted the DoW to specifically disclaim those things, and the DoW position is that it will not disclaim any specific mission set that it's legally allowed to engage in, whether that's Skynet, targeting, surveillance, or anything else. Not for Anthropic, not for any contractor.
    But refusing to disclaim a mission isn't the same as saying you want to do, just like refusing to answer "when did you stop beating your wife?" doesn't mean you're beating your wife.
    Is the DoW response to this tiff over the top? Sure, but it's also not 100% political either, I've run into many government bureaucrats who love bureaucratic knife fights like this.
prometheus1992 · 1790355337 · focus · HN ↗
This smells like corruption to me.
OpenAI has hacked several prominent entities and is allowed to do business as usual but Anthropic putting guardrails on the military's usage of AI is the national security threat while Pentagon itself said that over reliance on AI lead to that attack on school in Minab.
I have also learned that OpenAI's president is a big maga donor and now I am thinking of cancelling my OpenAI membership todau and signing up with Anthropic again.
Edit - i am not a OAI hater and i don't hate anyone. I am just saying Anthropic is kinda getting bullied and OAI is not being punished enough for their actions. It is time for me to support Anthropic (with my $$$) instead of OAI.
1. pixl97 · 1790355462 · focus · HN ↗
  Oh, 100%. You'll see OAI getting protected against lawsuits by the government while any missteps from Anthropic will be met with federal disapproval.
  1. dgellow · 1790371429 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, it’s obvious, in-your-face corruption
2. saadn92 · 1790355525 · focus · HN ↗
  Glad I canceled my subscription with them then. MAGA support is a no-no for me
  1. davidmurdoch · 1790356380 · focus · HN ↗
    What an insane way to live.
    0cf8612b2e1e · 1790356576 · focus · HN ↗
    With principles?
    If you find a person/company/agent odious, why would you want to financially support them?
  2. NDlurker · 1790356382 · focus · HN ↗
    Greg Brockman donated something like a million dollars to a MAGA super PAC. Check his wiki page
    segmondy · 1790356504 · focus · HN ↗
    $25,000,000.00
  3. snek_case · 1790356538 · focus · HN ↗
    Maga support?
  4. amelius · 1790359697 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't every subscription costing them money, still?
    dgellow · 1790371575 · focus · HN ↗
    No need to pay, you can waste their money via the free tier
3. [deleted] · 1790355548 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
4. CamperBob2 · 1790355559 · focus · HN ↗
  Not just "a big MAGA donor," the biggest single contributor. Greg Brockman donated $25 million.
  I get downvoted every time I point out that this was entirely rational. This, downvoters, is why it was entirely rational. Does that mean I agree with it? Of course not. But investments are made to pay off, and this one certainly has for OpenAI.
  1. UncleOxidant · 1790355740 · focus · HN ↗
    Didn't Musk contribute ~10x that in '24?
    CamperBob2 · 1790356012 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually, on further research, what I have wrong here is that Brockman was the largest single donor to the MAGA PAC after the election, contributing $25 million in September 2025 [1].
    Which if anything seems worse.
    1: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/openai-president-greg-brockman-trump-super-pac" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/o...
    NDlurker · 1790356686 · focus · HN ↗
    Wow! As a North Dakotan, I am appalled. I thought Doug Burgum was the biggest disappointment from our state but looks like I was wrong.
    wand3r · 1790357144 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, it surprised me when I found out. I can intellectually understand why average people choose MAGA and try and be somewhat understanding even if I find it distasteful. My conclusion is that if you aren't personally worth at least $5M or have the direct phone number of someone who can get a Trump admin official on the phone, then it was probably a bad choice.
    Of those who meet that criteria, and especially those with MUCH more money and closer connections, it actually is an extremely smart choice. However, it represents a level of reprehensible naked self-dealing and complicity that I simply can't condone. It really is comparable to the looting if public goods and coffers during and after the fall of the USSR. Nationalism and patriotism are dead.
  2. swingboy · 1790358639 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm wondering how much was to push towards supporting Israel in any future (at the time) conflict with Iran and it's proxies post October 7th like a lot of other Jewish million/billionaires such as Bill Ackman that typically supported Democrats or liberal causes. Brockman doesn't seem to have anything publicly stating he's Jewish but "Brockman" has English/German/Jewish origins and his mother's maiden name was Feldman.
5. bigyabai · 1790355601 · focus · HN ↗
  Enough to make you wonder how the rest of FAANG stays in the fed's good graces.
  1. multiplegeorges · 1790356145 · focus · HN ↗
    They all gave $1M to the inauguration, among other things, that's how. The corruption is out in the open.
    cogman10 · 1790356454 · focus · HN ↗
    They literally lined up to shower trump with gifts after the inauguration. Tim Cook gave trump a 24K gold bar with an easily detachable plaque so as to not have just given him a gold bar.
    frumplestlatz · 1790358550 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no available information on the quantity of gold in that base …
    … but I sincerely doubt Apple gave a ~$1M “gold bar” to a political leader, in front of cameras, using a patently transparent ploy like “it’s just a detachable base”.
    That would be a phenomenally stupid and obvious violation of bribery law.
    And if Trump does keep it as a personal gift, it will be included in a financial disclosure report.
    delecti · 1790359213 · focus · HN ↗
    This demonstrates a lot of faith in institutions which really ought have lost the benefit of the doubt. The ruling in Snyder v US has significantly raised the burden of proof for bribery charges, and it's easy to find examples of Trump enriching himself in office.
    cogman10 · 1790359341 · focus · HN ↗
    I never said it was worth $1M. But it's not infeasible that it's over $100k in value as just an couple of ounces of gold are $10k.
    > That would be a phenomenally stupid and obvious violation of bribery law.
    Nope, that's how crazy weak the US bribery laws are. The only time they really sort of kick in is when it's done on behalf of a foreign nation.
    To be convicted of current US bribery laws, you essentially need a written note that says "I am giving you this so you can in an official capacity pass this piece of legislation". McDonnell v. United States gutted any sort of accountability for bribery.
    But further, Trump v. United States (2022) has granted the president extra immunity so long as he's doing things in an "official capacity".
    It's a violation of what bribery laws should be, but not what they actually are.
    > And if Trump does keep it as a personal gift, it will be included in a financial disclosure report.
    Or what? You think his personal lawyer who heads the DoJ is going to prosecute him?
    peri-cl · 1790356643 · focus · HN ↗
    The bribes are transparent!
    <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Fd1ra287w70am3v.cloudfront.net%2F05-21-2026%2Ft_b5c7a4da74bc424292b476015344a0a3_name_t_f20a28f313874a99ad0717a463ba36c1_name_3___Vertical_Video_00_01_36_12_Still006.png&w=500" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A...
    davidw · 1790357808 · focus · HN ↗
    Easily the most corrupt administration in my lifetime of 50+ years.
  2. blitzar · 1790356294 · focus · HN ↗
    Showers of gold
  3. salawat · 1790356580 · focus · HN ↗
    We already know thanks to Snowden, or did you completely ignore the dump on how the IC hooks into the American tech sector?
6. enraged_camel · 1790355616 · focus · HN ↗
  Katsas and Rao, both Trump appointees, tag-teamed again. Trump automatically wins whenever they get a case.
7. paul7986 · 1790355748 · focus · HN ↗
  Personally I am enjoying Muse the most and so far havent hit any limits. I also (i know it's not a popular thing) have enjoyed wearing my Meta Ray Ban's since 2023 even if they break as MANY months later they come back to life.
  EDIT: Oh damn getting downvoted, tho not surprising. It looks like Meta Glasses are hated as MAGA, maybe Zuckerberg should call them MAGA glasses ha
  1. drop_star · 1790356494 · focus · HN ↗
    Keep your perv glasses at home weirdo
    paul7986 · 1790356697 · focus · HN ↗
    You and anyone i dont know are not special ... to me and thus would never appear in my videos or photos.
    rolosa · 1790357020 · focus · HN ↗
    Who cares? Your glasses are cancer.
    paul7986 · 1790359591 · focus · HN ↗
    I still enjoy wearing them i dont care what others say as Im using them as intended along with the millions of other smart glass wearers. You really think all 20 million smart glasses wearers are all being creeps - caring to film random strangers? Thats a miniscule population who has no life and who are loner/weirdos! But that's a good narrative for the general public who always fights new technology.
    In time one of the big tech will solve the pervert issue by randomizing / anonymizing every face in your photos that's not in your personal network. Once this is done / achieved no one will call them pervert glasses anymore. Im surprised Meta hasnt done this already! They really should!
    drop_star · 1790367423 · focus · HN ↗
    Whatever pervert. Everyone who sees you where them thinks your a pervert and its true. Id slap em off your pervert face.
    paul7986 · 1790372016 · focus · HN ↗
    ok whatever lets jump ahead five to ten years and you and or everyone around you will be wearing smart glasses
    maleldil · 1790374044 · focus · HN ↗
    So you recognise that today the pervert issue is real?
    paul7986 · 1790374333 · focus · HN ↗
    umm yeah if you read above i offered a technological solution and others can be offered too. Apple will be releasing their own glasses and I bet if they are smart will offer such.
8. simonw_simonw_ · 1790356041 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
9. gyanchawdhary · 1790356306 · focus · HN ↗
  you are so honourable and ethical about this issue .. I really respect your courage in cancelling (or planning to) OAI, especially since you must be so used to the harnesses .. workflows .. and muscle memory youve developed around their agents .. and now you'll have to switch to Anthropic and relearn its patterns .. I really think there's a lot of dignity and courage in that .. and others could learn from you ..
  I can 100% assume you showed that same courage and moral fortitude by quitting X after Elon acquired it. Respect!
  1. prometheus1992 · 1790356511 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for the encouragement. It's hard to come by these days on the internet. I never really used twitter even before elon bought it. I don't use any social media, maybe except hanging out on HN often.
10. a3w · 1790356671 · focus · HN ↗
  If a similar thing would be filed against OpenAI, it would stand up in court?
  That is not corruption, but in Germany, it is the executive branch which controls who is sued or policed by the stately organs.
  So favorism not corruption yet. If reciprocity is expected, then you could call it that.
  Still, I blame the US voters as much as the current administration if the later is just clowns and thieves.
  1. sanktanglia · 1790356950 · focus · HN ↗
    Not at corruption yet? The entire us government is corrupt now not sure what you are going on about
  2. StableAlkyne · 1790357153 · focus · HN ↗
    > but not we are not at corruption yet
    TIL Rip Van Winkle still takes occasional naps
  3. jaggirs · 1790357321 · focus · HN ↗
    If the president favors one party over another with no clear benefit to the voters, that is very indicative of corruption. If his organization is also getting donations from said party, it is even more certain to be corruption.
    You argue that the courts are not corrupt, hence there is no corruption. Without considering the president.
11. simonsarris · 1790356738 · focus · HN ↗
  These are just very different things. OAI "hacking" anything isn't OAI telling the US Gov what they can and cannot do with their product. Maybe along all kinds of axes, one is more alarming than the other, but it's a canard in this topic.
  1. prometheus1992 · 1790356956 · focus · HN ↗
    >> These are just very different things.OAI "hacking" anything isn't OAI telling the US Gov what they can and cannot do with their product.
    OAI hacking the chinese government will definitely raise alarms in DC and will be bad for national security. Just because the country that was hacked (australia) is a weaker one doesn't mean the underlying action is not troubling.
    gruez · 1790357175 · focus · HN ↗
    >OAI hacking the chinese government will definitely raise alarms in DC and will be bad for national security.
    That seems like it's too easy to abuse as a cudgel for whatever companies you vaguely hate. Is ExxonMobil a "supply chain risk" because the effects of climate change might cause geopolitical ructions in the next decade?
    prometheus1992 · 1790357678 · focus · HN ↗
    Hate is a pretty strong word here. I don't hate OAI. I am a paying subscriber. All I am saying is maybe its time to switch, show support for Anthropic because it is kinda getting bullied right now and the OAI is not getting enough punishment for their illicit actions. Is it too hard to understand?
    simonsarris · 1790364827 · focus · HN ↗
    That does not, in itself, suggest they are a supply chain risk. It might label them a national security risk. And you might have your own creative definitions of every word related to supply chains. But we are talking about supply chain risks as the US Gov understands them.
12. mahboi · 1790356788 · focus · HN ↗
  There's no contradiction there. Pentagon doesn't want Anthropic deciding the guardrails on their own.
  1. sfink · 1790369574 · focus · HN ↗
    Then the Pentagon shouldn't sign a contract with them. (Or in this case, they shouldn't try and fail to renegotiate the terms of an already signed contract, and then retaliate in order to get their way.)
13. gruez · 1790356984 · focus · HN ↗
  >OpenAI has hacked several prominent entities and is allowed to do business as usual but Anthropic putting guardrails on the military's usage of AI is the national security threat while Pentagon itself said that over reliance on AI lead to that attack on school in Minab.
  Right, because "supply chain risk" designation is as it pertains to them being a supplier to the military, not a overall assessment of their standing as a corporate citizen. Not to mention that the administration wants to go full steam ahead when it comes to AI development, so there's no internal contradiction here.
  1. solenoid0937 · 1790367472 · focus · HN ↗
    SCR explicitly refers to sabotage. Where is Anthropic sabotaging the US government?
    DOW wanted to change the contract after the fact. Anthropic refused. That is not sabotage.
  2. handoflixue · 1790374780 · focus · HN ↗
    I do feel like "this company hacked the Australian government" is perhaps relevant when considering how much the military should trust them. Like, that seems very relevant when assessing the risks to the government military.
14. aftbit · 1790357118 · focus · HN ↗
  Most favored companies are a common feature of fascism.
  1. gruez · 1790357367 · focus · HN ↗
    Like such national champions like Airbus and Volkswagen right?
    kennywinker · 1790357501 · focus · HN ↗
    Is this a joke? Volkswagen was literally created by the nazi party.
    gruez · 1790357849 · focus · HN ↗
    So what does that say about the current German state, given that it's still a national champion? Not to mention airbus being an EU champion.
    kennywinker · 1790359270 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess I don't know what "national champion" means. Do they receive different legal treatment from other similar companies? If so, that would be a worrying signal. A common feature of fascism being present doesn't mean you've definitely got fascism, but it does raise a pretty big red flag.
    gruez · 1790369870 · focus · HN ↗
    >I guess I don't know what "national champion" means.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions
    >Do they receive different legal treatment from other similar companies? If so, that would be a worrying signal. A common feature of fascism being present doesn't mean you've definitely got fascism, but it does raise a pretty big red flag.
    They definitely get assistance from the government. Where that crosses into "different legal treatment" is up to you, though personally I think the distinction (if any) isn't really worth much. The original claim was "Most favored companies", not "are totally exempt from the law". In the case of openai, it's not really clear whether any laws have been broken, because despite all the cries over "they hacked people!", the question of intent would make any prosecution tricky. Not to mention there's similar cries about AI companies in general violating copyright laws, so if the implication is that openai gets to break laws scott free but anthropic doesn't, that really falls flat.
    kennywinker · 1790373432 · focus · HN ↗
    The crux of the issue isn’t hacking - all the big US labs have hacked someone now (<a href="https://www.felonybench.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.felonybench.com/)and none have faced charges. It also isn’t copyright violations, they all seem equally guilty and equally uncharged.
    The issue is openai and anthropic both make similar products in similar ways and yet only one has been designated a “supply chain risk” for entirely opaque reasons that based on timing are probably just “they didn’t kowtow correctly”.
    The gov putting their finger on the scales for the company that showed the most deference to them is not a good sign for democracy.
15. CobrastanJorji · 1790357134 · focus · HN ↗
  It's not corruption. It's partisanship. It's no surprise that the two judges who voted for this were put there by Trump.
  1. kennywinker · 1790357369 · focus · HN ↗
    Partisanship is corruption. The law is being corrupted to serve political idiologies.
  2. boredatoms · 1790357430 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats 100% corruption
    (Hmm did you edit your reply?)
16. burkaman · 1790357640 · focus · HN ↗
  OpenAI also has stronger guardrails than what Anthropic proposed: <a href="https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/" rel="nofollow">https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-o....
17. rkagerer · 1790357656 · focus · HN ↗
  For clarity, you don't mean corruption of the court, but corruption of the administration for what you view as unequal enforcement, right?
  1. sfink · 1790369429 · focus · HN ↗
    Not the OP, but personally I'd say both: unequal enforcement by the administration, and an incorrect and politically motivated decision by the court.
18. Razengan · 1790359867 · focus · HN ↗
  Or they could be playing Good Cop / Bad Cop
19. toufka · 1790369097 · focus · HN ↗
  A large portion of the president's daughter's net worth is in OpenAI via Thrive Capital [1]
  [1] <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/thrive-capital-openai-joshua-kushner.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/thrive-capital-openai-joshua...
20. janalsncm · 1790373954 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic was designated long before the July OAI hacks. Also the appeals court isn’t re-assessing the DoD in light of new evidence, they are deciding whether it was constitutional for the DoD to blacklist Anthropic in the first place.
  1. handoflixue · 1790374667 · focus · HN ↗
    > Anthropic was designated long before the July OAI hacks.
    I think the point is that, if the DOD was working off a coherent philosophy, the company that has a rap sheet for hacking multiple targets, including the Australian government, is probably also a risk.
    And if "hacking the Australian government" isn't enough to qualify as a threat to national security, then it's probably mudslinging to suggest that Anthropic is a threat.
    janalsncm · 1790388489 · focus · HN ↗
    Alternative explanation:
    1) The designation has nothing to do with hacking, either from Anthropic or otherwise. The dispute is about Anthropic barring the DoD from using Claude to develop autonomous weapons and conduct domestic surveillance.
    2) The DoD does not care about any of the hacking OpenAI does as long as the DoD can do what they want with ChatGPT.
    3) Historically, the US government has been interested in hacking other nation states, friendly and not. So OpenAI being able to hack Australian systems is a selling point.
21. onetimeusename · 1790440669 · focus · HN ↗
  I think you're making an assumption about what the military wants to do with AI. Based on things I have put together, they want an AI without guardrails for various reasons I won't go into. In fact, it's a security risk to have guardrails, given what I think at least one intended use is. Also I think cancelling memberships because the corporation has made donations to someone you dislike is kind of petty and ridiculous. Did you not notice how corporations tend to spread risk around? You might have to cancel a lot of subscriptions and maybe in a couple years you can sign back up again.
Chance-Device · 1790355337 · focus · HN ↗
I guess it’s the supreme court next.
For all the downsides of losing the business of government contractors, it really would hold Anthropic to their stated values: they’ll never develop AI controlled weapons on this blacklist.
ctippett · 1790355495 · focus · HN ↗
Admittedly I still need to do some reading on the current ruling, but how this isn't seen as an open and shut case of vindictive prosecution (if that's even a thing for this branch of law?) is astounding. The administration couldn't have made it more obvious there was no merit to their designation of Anthropic.
1. 1234letshaveatw · 1790355864 · focus · HN ↗
  In what country would that behavior be acceptable? "Oh hey, we're going to abstain from being a supplier for the defense of the ground we operate on and the economy that spawned us." As Obama once said "you didn't build that!". I'm sure you're a champion for the Ukrainian conscription dodgers though right?
  1. hardbass · 1790355933 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, anyone and everyone should have a right to refuse contracts with the government. Is that difficult to understand? If you find it difficult to understand then perhaps democracy and capitalism isn't for you.
    1234letshaveatw · 1790356161 · focus · HN ↗
    Perhaps. Good luck skipping out on paying your taxes or filling out the census
    hardbass · 1790356359 · focus · HN ↗
    If you can only make such absurd examples then you have failed. Paying taxes are not a contract between me and the government. They are a forced fee extracted of me. Everyone should be worried about the government threatening to issue supply chain risks if they don't like you rejecting a contract with them.
    colejohnson66 · 1790356389 · focus · HN ↗
    Paying taxes is different than being a DoD contractor.
    1234letshaveatw · 1790360204 · focus · HN ↗
    both fall under the umbrella of civic duties
    hardbass · 1790360371 · focus · HN ↗
    Its not a fucking civic duty for my company to be forced into entering contracts with the government. Its my civic right to tell the government to pound sand without fearing forceful retaliation.
    HarHarVeryFunny · 1790356641 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe, but only in a very idealistic, unrealistic, sense.
    Could you imagine a hypothetical where we're at war and a private company has a potentially war-ending tech (nuclear weapon say) that they refuse to sell to the government?
    hardbass · 1790358169 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes I can, and I'd lose faith in the government and loyalty and willpower to fight if that company refused and the government forcibly usurped it.
    HarHarVeryFunny · 1790359712 · focus · HN ↗
    What if the private company had a vaccine to prevent a pandemic?
    The job of a government is to look after the interests of the people who elected it... Is there no point that you think the rights/needs of the many should outweigh the ideological rights of the individual?
    hardbass · 1790360031 · focus · HN ↗
    If the individual doesn't have rights, then the many don't have either for many is composed of individuals. And yes, I will have the same opinion on that private company. But morally you can see the difference between a company refusing to help in making unaided killbots vs a company releasing a vaccine?
    HarHarVeryFunny · 1790362204 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure - I agree with Anthropic's position here, but at the same time it makes sense that the military doesn't want to use them, and there are certainly situations where the government needs to be given the powers to do what they are elected to do, but hopefully limited to extraordinary justified situations.
    hardbass · 1790362392 · focus · HN ↗
    And with trumps government, I have little faith if it will be a controlled careful and limited decision.
    1234letshaveatw · 1790360023 · focus · HN ↗
    It's absurd. Imagine Henry Ford blocking support for the US Army in the 40s
    hardbass · 1790360092 · focus · HN ↗
    Henry Ford should have the full right to do so.
    damontal · 1790372366 · focus · HN ↗
    So it’s involved in wars.
    hardbass · 1790374798 · focus · HN ↗
    Show me where war was declared? If its not war then why are special war related concepts are being brought up?
    damontal · 1790375870 · focus · HN ↗
    So it’s only war if it’s declared war? I guess this is peace then.
    hardbass · 1790377384 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not the one saying that.
    fragmede · 1790361111 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, if they think the government is going to be irresponsible with it, and their weaponized smallpox is liable to cause a global pandemic that will also kill many of their countrymen, it seems entirely reasonable for the company not to sell it, or be forced to sell it either.
  2. ctippett · 1790356122 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not even sure your comment warrants a response, but surely you can't have meant that as a response to my comment?
    1234letshaveatw · 1790359879 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure did- Anthropics behavior absolutely merits their designation. Private sector leadership is going to decide how the military should act? They are shirking their civic duties, plain and simple and the use of their tech should certainly be called into question.
    ctippett · 1790361772 · focus · HN ↗
    If you attempt a less adversarial tone with your comments you'll be less likely to get flagged and you might actually get to have the substantive discussion you're clearly impassioned to have.
    1234letshaveatw · 1790695013 · focus · HN ↗
    Nah- I am satisfied with the discussion that took place.
    ctippett · 1790708623 · focus · HN ↗
    Low bar. Aim higher.
2. CodeWriter23 · 1790357894 · focus · HN ↗
  Decisions by Executive Branch Agencies <> Prosecution
3. adastra22 · 1790405847 · focus · HN ↗
  What prosecution? There’s no legal prosecution going on here.
  1. ctippett · 1790418841 · focus · HN ↗
    You'll note that I alluded to that in the parenthesis.
romellem · 1790355755 · focus · HN ↗
Opinion by Katsas and Rao. For those that don’t follow this regularly, those are two of the biggest Trump hacks on the bench.
I suspect this will be reversed en banc.
Anthropic’s argument is really clear and easy to understand: we can’t simultaneously be a supply chain risk and also be a company the DoD demands we change our policies so they can use our models without restrictions.
1. panda-giddiness · 1790357647 · focus · HN ↗
  I suspect some people will reflexively downvote you for bringing politics into the matter, but yeah, this is like a textbook bad draw for Anthropic. It's hardly the final word on the matter
2. CodeWriter23 · 1790358397 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic's policies are literally the supply chain risk.
  The DoD could have used the same authority to seize the technology if it wanted to. Especially in a time of war. DoD has instead chosen to respect Antrhopic's boundaries and has simply barred anyone in the agency from buying a product that comes with strings attached.
  This is 100% on Anthropic for product:market fit failure.
  1. xfil · 1790368682 · focus · HN ↗
    Am I misunderstanding this entire ordeal, or are Anthropic's policies not precisely what the DOD agreed to in its initial contract with Anthropic? Did the DOD not then seek to change the contract terms, to which Anthropic refused?
    If I sell the DOD a service with contracted terms X/Y/Z, the DOD agrees, then later asks me to drop Z, and I refuse, how would that warrant the legal definition of a supply chain risk? How is the appropriate response for the DOD not to simply find another service provider?
  2. solenoid0937 · 1790368787 · focus · HN ↗
    You've misinterpreted the situation so severely.
    The DoW tried to change a contract they had signed. Anthropic refused. That doesn't make them a supply chain risk (the wording of which implies "likely to sabotage" the government).
    CodeWriter23 · 1790376146 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, the DoD read the clickwrapped contract. GTFO
    solenoid0937 · 1790408030 · focus · HN ↗
    You do not understand how these deals are made! You think their lawyers didn't pour over every sentence?
    CodeWriter23 · 1790467128 · focus · HN ↗
    Which administration made the deal with Anthropic?
  3. jeremyjh · 1790372834 · focus · HN ↗
    How does that boot taste?
  4. sfink · 1790390484 · focus · HN ↗
    > Especially in a time of war.
    The US has not declared war on Iran. No wartime legal mechanism is at play, and cannot be until Congress decides to declare war.
3. bubblethink · 1790395604 · focus · HN ↗
  Yeah, Katsas and Rao are top shelf partisan hacks. Why did Anthropic not sue in the 9th circuit?
ApolloFortyNine · 1790356118 · focus · HN ↗
I know everyone says this is political but it actually seems like a textbook designation. Anthropic wanted to have rules on how the military used AI, the military said no and therefore doesn't want anthropic used anywhere in their supply line.
This is like a pen manufacturer not wanting their pens used to sign drone strike orders, now the military needs to have a special box of pens that don't have stipulations attached. With AI usage it would be the same thing except applied to entire product chains. It seems like it would just add more complexity to operations.
You can agree with the rules anthropic wanted, but having rules set by a private company at all that apply to the military does seem fair for the military to object to.
>The Department reasonably feared that Anthropic might manipulate Claude’s design to prevent it from performing national-security functions that the Department deems contractually authorized and necessary
Though they'd probably put the DoD on the cybersecurity whitelist today, the very idea of the claude whitelists for certain functionality already exists and is being used by them today.
1. lukewarm707 · 1790356364 · focus · HN ↗
  i agree. by nature a lease is more risky than the military having its own model.
  however anthropic also believes it is some kind of entity unto itself so it is not at all reliable.
2. nilkn · 1790356802 · focus · HN ↗
  Surprisingly, I tend to agree with this. I don't think Anthropic and the government are compatible to work together, and I don't think that is a result of or specific to the Trump administration. I'm sure the Trump administration accelerated the immediate fallout and drama, but the fundamental conclusion seems structurally forced: the military is not going to track how every single party in every supply chain uses Claude just to satisfy Anthropic.
3. felixgallo · 1790356854 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic's red lines were 'no fully autonomous AI kill chains' and 'no domestic mass surveillance'. Those are clearly not national-security or DoD functions in the first place, so why would they be in any way objectionable?
  1. alex_sf · 1790358859 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you think a private company should be able to accumulate enough wealth and power to dictate policy to the US federal government?
    nostrademons · 1790360235 · focus · HN ↗
    There are already several private companies that have this, eg. Apple has specific exemptions from tariffs on smartphones, computers, and semiconductors that they got by paying off Trump and promising to make their iPhone glass in Kentucky:
    <a href="https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/tariff-exemptions-are-big-business-for-big-business/" rel="nofollow">https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/tariff-exemptions-are-bi...
    <a href="https://www.warren.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/letter_from_senator_warren_to_apple_on_tariff_exceptions.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.warren.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/l...
    The correct mental model for the U.S. federal government right now is not an omnipotent democratic overseer for economic activity, but rather as just one firm that negotiates directly with other major firms for legitimization and legal protection. Their power is likely to decline further, as is the value of "legitimization", as technological developments erode the military's monopoly on physical force. Interesting times ahead - historically tech transitions like this lead to a splintering of state legitimacy and then a reorganization under new forms of governance.
    Obscurity4340 · 1790360650 · focus · HN ↗
    Somebody clearly has to
    orangecat · 1790360736 · focus · HN ↗
    I think a private company of any size should be able to offer its products on whatever terms they choose. If the military doesn't like those terms, they're free to do business elsewhere.
    sejje · 1790361889 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that what happened?
    felixgallo · 1790363812 · focus · HN ↗
    You are obviously being disingenuous, because you are on a thread where the DoD is not just electing not to buy Anthropic's service, but also trying to bully them into submission with the unrealistic threat of the DPA, punitively and disproportionately trying to label them a national security risk, and invoking supply chain issues normally applied to our worst adversaries, for the first time putting an obviously patriotic American country on the same footing as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia.
    Remember, the Anthropic red line was "no war crimes and no mass surveillance of the US population." You may think that war crimes are cool, and that mass surveillance of the US population by the department of defense would be fine, but consider the natural consequences, both for democracy and for any adversary's conduct in future wars.
    hardbass · 1790364025 · focus · HN ↗
    >obviously patriotic American country
    Hi, just informing you of the typo.
    felixgallo · 1790370098 · focus · HN ↗
    thanks. Company, of course
    sejje · 1790371833 · focus · HN ↗
    > You may think that war crimes are cool
    It's really rich to say this after calling me disingenuous.
    I don't think it's cool that Anthropic gets to set military policy. I don't care how much I agree or disagree with the policy. Wario is not the president. And Anthropic does not strike me as "obviously patriotic," not that I think it's better if the private company bossing the military around is patriotic. It has no relevance.
    "Warcrimes" is the new "racist," too. It gets thrown around willy nilly about every military action.
    culi · 1790372317 · focus · HN ↗
    War crimes have a precise legal meaning and have for a long time. Get off of twitter and touch grass if you feel you're getting called racist too often.
    sejje · 1790401517 · focus · HN ↗
    I haven't been called racist, actually, but people get called racist just for looking like me.
    tick_tock_tick · 1790382949 · focus · HN ↗
    So your saying they are 100% correct and Anthropic is a supply chain risk? All you're doing is trying to justify why they shouldn't be labeled truthfully rather then saying it wasn't the truth (probably because you know it was).
    felixgallo · 1790387516 · focus · HN ↗
    no, because it's cockamamie bullshit that they're a supply chain risk on the same level as Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. And you know this!
    cataphract · 1790360736 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean like pharmaceutical companies refusing to supply chemicals for lethal injection?
    hardbass · 1790360833 · focus · HN ↗
    Its not dictating policy. Any company of any size should be able to set any contract they want with the government or any other party.
4. burkaman · 1790356920 · focus · HN ↗
  The reason it appears corrupt is that OpenAI has the exact same restrictions (<a href="https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/" rel="nofollow">https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-o...) but was not declared a supply chain risk. If two vendors have the same restrictions and they only designate one, then the designation must be arbitrary and/or capricious.
  Edit: I was wrong, the statement I linked is extremely dishonest and I was misled. The contract language lower down makes it clear that there are no "red lines", and OpenAI products can in fact be used for mass domestic surveillance, autonomous weapons, and social credit systems as long as they are considered legal.
  1. paulddraper · 1790357148 · focus · HN ↗
    Were they the same restrictions though?
    OpenAI just said no surveillance of U.S. persons.
    Anthropic could have gone further; I think it's likely they did.
    burkaman · 1790357463 · focus · HN ↗
    There are three restrictions:
    > No use of OpenAI technology for mass domestic surveillance.
    > No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems.
    > No use of OpenAI technology for high-stakes automated decisions (e.g. systems such as “social credit”).
    These are stronger than Anthropic's restrictions (<a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war), as OpenAI says themselves: "We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s. [...] Based on what we know, we believe our contract provides better guarantees and more responsible safeguards than earlier agreements, including Anthropic’s original contract."
    Edit: I was wrong, see my original comment. Sorry.
    paulddraper · 1790357725 · focus · HN ↗
    The article only cites language for two paragraphs, which is the surveillance.
    The other stuff...there's no citation or quote. Meaning that it could be OpenAI having their cake and eating it to, with no pushback on the actual language, or consequnces, or enforcement.
  2. CodeWriter23 · 1790357559 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you think OpenAI's terms for the DoD are published on a website? Pretty sure when Anthropic got zapped, OpenAI sent DoD a memo 500ms later saying they wouldn't restrict use.
    Look at it pragmatically. What does the DoD use every single procurement for? Hint: military use.
  3. hintymad · 1790357581 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought the difference is that clearly written rules or SLAs are acceptable and can even be negotiated before signing a contract, but having a person, in this case Amodei himself, manually approve DOJ's usage case by case with his own moral judgement after a contract is signed is not okay.
    noahbp · 1790373649 · focus · HN ↗
    No one wanted case-by-case veto ability at Anthropic. The red lines were made clear ahead of time: No use of Anthropic models for autonomous weapons (Skynet) or mass-domestic surveillance, negotiated in the agreement.
    OpenAI, xAI, and Google happily agreed to DoW contracts which allow both of those use cases.
  4. gruez · 1790357656 · focus · HN ↗
    >OpenAI has the exact same restrictions
    No it doesn't. Specifically OpenAI had a "all lawful purposes" clause (which plausibly includes the existing mass surveillance apparatus), but Anthropic did not.
    burkaman · 1790358253 · focus · HN ↗
    You're right, what an incredibly dishonest statement. The actual contract language in there makes it clear that there are no restrictions. My bad.
5. tintor · 1790357052 · focus · HN ↗
  Non-sense. Pentagon has many many uses of AI besides autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance, which Anthropic doesn't restrict. ie: intelligence analysis, target selection, payroll, inventory, research, supply chain and logistics, medical, bureaucracy, ...
  1. frumplestlatz · 1790358986 · focus · HN ↗
    We cannot subordinate our military’s decision making power — in any arena — to a private company.
    Our military must also not be dependent on a private company that believes it has the moral prerogative to control our military’s decisions, and would have the technical capability to do so.
    hardbass · 1790359108 · focus · HN ↗
    No entity should have a right to dictate whether your private company does business with someone or not. The military can pound sand if they don't like your contract terms. That is if you believe in democracy and capitalism. If you don't, then it's not a problem to you.
    frumplestlatz · 1790359647 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re still absolutely free to do business with Anthropic.
    Our military is simply choosing not to do business with them, or anyone that depends on them.
    If you believed in democracy, you wouldn’t be supporting the EA-infected corporation that tried to make our democratic institutions subordinate to their corporate decision making.
    hardbass · 1790359907 · focus · HN ↗
    I support any and all moves that empower private persons and corporations over the infinite force of governments. They didn't try to make anyone subordinate to anything. They made a proposal. Trump pissed and generally made a mess as he usually does and then they randomly declared them a supply chain treat.
    RealFloridaMan · 1790364400 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not what they are doing. They could have just canceled the contract and paid the exit clause. This is retaliation, because Anthropic would not move on their pre-negotiated terms. As a result, they are now been from being used anywhere in the US government.
    Let me ask you this, if Anthropic did allow them to use it for surveillance… do you think it would stop at the Pentagon?
    ahtihn · 1790373781 · focus · HN ↗
    Any private entity has that right though.
    I, as a person, can decide I won't do business with a company that uses Anthropic models for whatever reason. I can even decide I won't do business with a company that relies on suppliers that use Anthropic.
    This right applies to private companies too. Like Walmart could set contract terms that their suppliers aren't allowed to use AWS. The suppliers are free to accept those terms or not.
    RealFloridaMan · 1790364294 · focus · HN ↗
    The military is bound by contract, just like any other government agency. They entered into a contract, with these clauses well-known. This was OK because they have all the same problems every other organization uses AI for.
    They could’ve just negotiate a new contract with OpenAI, without banning it from every government agency. But I’m sure that would’ve triggered some kind of extra clause and cost money…
    Your entire statement lacks any type of fact.
    spankalee · 1790364902 · focus · HN ↗
    This is ridiculous. Anthropic should be free to say the terms for using their service. It doesn't "subordinate" the military, and the military is far from some infallible, unquestionable force here.
    If the military wants to use AI to autonomously kill people, they can - Anthropic is not stopping them - thy just can't with Anthropic's services.
    The government retaliating by then claiming that any use of Anthropic is risk is an obvious farce. How would Anthropic be any less of a risk if they let Claude autonomously kill people?
    mitthrowaway2 · 1790368783 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe the military should just seize the technology and nationalize the company then? Because clearly, paying a private party voluntarily entering into a contract on mutually-agreed upon terms is now a polite fiction that can be done away with.
    tintor · 1790630673 · focus · HN ↗
    And then what? You expect military to keep doing frontier AI R&D, after all research staff leaves to other non-nationalized frontier labs?
    metalspot · 1790395188 · focus · HN ↗
    The complete failure of any of these Anthropic cheerleaders (to the extent that they are not AI generate comments posted by bots) to understand basic Constitutional principles of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers is mind blowing.
    Their argument, in effect, is that we should throw out the entire Constitutional order and make Dario Amodei dictator of the world. The psychopathic hubris is laughable.
  2. themaninthedark · 1790365911 · focus · HN ↗
    Right but the military wants to be able to use a tool they are paying for in all cases, not just ones the manufacturer thinks they should.
    If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now.
    Dylan16807 · 1790366632 · focus · HN ↗
    They sure as hell shouldn't! Selling steel for any use except ships and tanks is a little odd but it's not a risk.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.