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. felixgallo · 1790356854 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic's red lines were 'no fully autonomous AI kill chains' and 'no domestic mass surveillance'. Those are clearly not national-security or DoD functions in the first place, so why would they be in any way objectionable?
  1. alex_sf · 1790358859 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you think a private company should be able to accumulate enough wealth and power to dictate policy to the US federal government?
    nostrademons · 1790360235 · focus · HN ↗
    There are already several private companies that have this, eg. Apple has specific exemptions from tariffs on smartphones, computers, and semiconductors that they got by paying off Trump and promising to make their iPhone glass in Kentucky:
    <a href="https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/tariff-exemptions-are-big-business-for-big-business/" rel="nofollow">https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/tariff-exemptions-are-bi...
    <a href="https://www.warren.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/letter_from_senator_warren_to_apple_on_tariff_exceptions.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.warren.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/l...
    The correct mental model for the U.S. federal government right now is not an omnipotent democratic overseer for economic activity, but rather as just one firm that negotiates directly with other major firms for legitimization and legal protection. Their power is likely to decline further, as is the value of "legitimization", as technological developments erode the military's monopoly on physical force. Interesting times ahead - historically tech transitions like this lead to a splintering of state legitimacy and then a reorganization under new forms of governance.
    Obscurity4340 · 1790360650 · focus · HN ↗
    Somebody clearly has to
    orangecat · 1790360736 · focus · HN ↗
    I think a private company of any size should be able to offer its products on whatever terms they choose. If the military doesn't like those terms, they're free to do business elsewhere.
    sejje · 1790361889 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that what happened?
    felixgallo · 1790363812 · focus · HN ↗
    You are obviously being disingenuous, because you are on a thread where the DoD is not just electing not to buy Anthropic's service, but also trying to bully them into submission with the unrealistic threat of the DPA, punitively and disproportionately trying to label them a national security risk, and invoking supply chain issues normally applied to our worst adversaries, for the first time putting an obviously patriotic American country on the same footing as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia.
    Remember, the Anthropic red line was "no war crimes and no mass surveillance of the US population." You may think that war crimes are cool, and that mass surveillance of the US population by the department of defense would be fine, but consider the natural consequences, both for democracy and for any adversary's conduct in future wars.
    hardbass · 1790364025 · focus · HN ↗
    >obviously patriotic American country
    Hi, just informing you of the typo.
    felixgallo · 1790370098 · focus · HN ↗
    thanks. Company, of course
    sejje · 1790371833 · focus · HN ↗
    > You may think that war crimes are cool
    It's really rich to say this after calling me disingenuous.
    I don't think it's cool that Anthropic gets to set military policy. I don't care how much I agree or disagree with the policy. Wario is not the president. And Anthropic does not strike me as "obviously patriotic," not that I think it's better if the private company bossing the military around is patriotic. It has no relevance.
    "Warcrimes" is the new "racist," too. It gets thrown around willy nilly about every military action.
    culi · 1790372317 · focus · HN ↗
    War crimes have a precise legal meaning and have for a long time. Get off of twitter and touch grass if you feel you're getting called racist too often.
    sejje · 1790401517 · focus · HN ↗
    I haven't been called racist, actually, but people get called racist just for looking like me.
    tick_tock_tick · 1790382949 · focus · HN ↗
    So your saying they are 100% correct and Anthropic is a supply chain risk? All you're doing is trying to justify why they shouldn't be labeled truthfully rather then saying it wasn't the truth (probably because you know it was).
    felixgallo · 1790387516 · focus · HN ↗
    no, because it's cockamamie bullshit that they're a supply chain risk on the same level as Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. And you know this!
    cataphract · 1790360736 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean like pharmaceutical companies refusing to supply chemicals for lethal injection?
    hardbass · 1790360833 · focus · HN ↗
    Its not dictating policy. Any company of any size should be able to set any contract they want with the government or any other party.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.