‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

499 points · 900 comments · cramer4next

  1. petcat · · 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. hiddencost · · focus · HN ↗
      No. This also means that no companies that work with th DoD can use anthropic models for any purpose.
      1. VWWHFSfQ · · 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.

        1. tmvphil · · 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".
          1. VWWHFSfQ · · 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.

            1. Jtsummers · · 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.

              1. VWWHFSfQ · · focus · HN ↗
                > that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud
                1. scottyah · · focus · HN ↗
                  Wym "backed by"? This makes no sense.
                  1. Jtsummers · · focus · HN ↗
                    [delayed]
                2. Jtsummers · · focus · HN ↗
                  [delayed]
          2. rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
            Sure why not? The government is just exercising its power as a purchaser.
            1. felixgallo · · focus · HN ↗
              'why not'? It's retaliatory beyond all proportionality, for one.
            2. scottyah · · 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.
              1. rayiner · · 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.
                1. scottyah · · 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.
                  1. rayiner · · 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.
                    1. felixgallo · · focus · HN ↗
                      when you say 'quite reasonably', you are aware that no-human-in-the-loop AI kill chains are war crimes, right?
                      1. krapp · · focus · HN ↗
                        "maximum lethality, not tepid legality."
                2. s1artibartfast · · 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.

            3. apawloski · · 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.
              1. rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
                The "administrative mechanism" here is just a way of exercising purchasing control. A private company could do the same thing.
                1. Jtsummers · · 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.

                  1. rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
                    That's not what happened here. It was "you can't use <some other company> for stuff you do for us."
                    1. Jtsummers · · 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).

                    2. felixgallo · · 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.”
                2. apawloski · · focus · HN ↗
                  Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the administrative procedure act, etc.
            4. s1artibartfast · · 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?

        2. noahbp · · focus · HN ↗
          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.com&#x2F;software&#x2F;2026&#x2F;04&#x2F;01&#x2F;claude-codes-source-reveals-extent-of-system-access&#x2F;5222658#:~:text=Anthropic%20does,model%2E%22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.com&#x2F;software&#x2F;2026&#x2F;04&#x2F;01&#x2F;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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.