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. 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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.