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. 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?

         1. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.