Thread

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

499 points · 900 comments · cramer4next

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. 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.
    Edit add: What is targeting? What is surveillance?
    If someone in the intelligence analysis department uses AI to generate a report, then someone else uses that report for targeting did they just break the terms? Where is that line?
    Much easier for the Pentagon to say no.
    Dylan16807 · 1790366632 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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.
    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.
    (I'm ignoring the "but then" because this was about future sales not previous ones.)
    cptroot · 1790366737 · focus · HN ↗
    Your "but then" is off-base. This is selling steel for the express purpose of nuclear reactors, with a contractual clause against its use in tanks, and the US government deciding that it doesn't feel like abiding by the rules in the contract.
    mitthrowaway2 · 1790368471 · focus · HN ↗
    It's funny, I buy some software and the license says "for student and non-commercial use only", which lets me get it for $50 instead of the $5000 that an enterprise would pay. But I can just ignore that clause or declare them a supply-chain risk if they try to hold me to it, because now that they've taken my $50, who are they to dictate how I use it? I can do whatever I want, not just what the vendor thinks I should, right? A contact is just paper, right?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.