Thread

1. 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. sippingabonedry · 1790358153 · focus · HN ↗

      > I know everyone says this is political but it actually seems like a textbook designation

      It literally is a textbook definition, signed into US law:

      “Supply chain risk,” means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system (see 10 U.S.C. 3252).

      To add onto what another commenter said, the pen analogy would be more like the manufacturer designing pens that stopped working when used to sign strike orders they disagreed with.

      1. benoau · 1790359461 · focus · HN ↗

         > so as to surveil

         How does Android and iPhone meet the grade given apps have pretty consistently leaked locations, base layouts etc?

         1. r_lee · 1790364781 · focus · HN ↗

            apps, not the actual devices by the supplier

            1. benoau · 1790376106 · focus · HN ↗

               I think that still matches "an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function".

               <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;taskandpurpose.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;military-cybersecurity-ad-trackers-iran&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;taskandpurpose.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;military-cybersecurity-ad-tr...

               &gt; The U.S. military has disabled advertising tracking tools in government-issued phones, computers and other devices, officials recently told Congress.

               &gt; The different military branches confirmed they had done so, some only this summer, following reporting that commercially available data taken from these devices and sold freely by data brokers, was being used by Iran and other adversaries to track and in some cases target American bases and personnel.

               1. wildzzz · 1790389028 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yeah, and with Strava data, you didn&#x27;t even have to buy anything, just look for someone running laps in the middle of the desert.
         2. tbugrara · 1790380469 · focus · HN ↗

            Laws are only half the picture. Enforcement is an additional aspect. And yes it is extremely prone to corruption.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.