Thread

1. 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 ↗

      [dead]

      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.

         1. majorchord · 1790355240 · focus · HN ↗

            Is it still fascism if they were properly elected and a court agreed with them?

            1. hardbass · 1790355361 · focus · HN ↗

               If its this court, then probably yes. They have special treatment of Trump.

               1. ilikehurdles · 1790356092 · focus · HN ↗

                  Is that why he's so mad at their rulings all the time?

                  1. hardbass · 1790356732 · focus · HN ↗

                     They aren't yet ready to fully fall down in line and some of the judges are not trumpies.
            2. rcxdude · 1790355367 · focus · HN ↗

               The most famous example of fascism was democratically elected.
            3. 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?

               1. 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. [deleted] · 1790354597 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      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.

         1. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. hardbass · 1790355794 · focus · HN ↗

                  Irrelevant. Then the government should just refrain from taking the contract, not use violent force to restrict Anthropic doing business.

                  1. 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.

                     1. 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.

                        1. 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?

                           1. 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.
                        2. 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.

                        3. 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?

                           1. 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".
                  2. 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.

                     1. 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?

                        1. 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

                           1. 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.

                              1. 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.

               2. IX-103 · 1790356242 · focus · HN ↗

                  [delayed]

                  1. 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.

         2. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. hardbass · 1790355711 · focus · HN ↗

                     How is it "evil"?
                  2. SpicyLemonZest · 1790356186 · focus · HN ↗

                     [delayed]
                  3. SpicyLemonZest · 1790356304 · focus · HN ↗

                     [delayed]
      5. kingstnap · 1790355773 · focus · HN ↗

         [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.