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. phkahler · 1790360067 · focus · HN ↗

         Who is the adversary in this case?

         1. newsclues · 1790360581 · focus · HN ↗

            "risk that an adversary may" any of them.

            China, Russia, Iran, come to mind.

            1. collingreen · 1790364952 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

               1. Griffinsauce · 1790367419 · focus · HN ↗

                  Because it's incorrect.

                  Those are (arguably) adversaries but the actor here is Anthropic, which is not an adversary.

               2. valleyer · 1790368751 · focus · HN ↗

                  Because those countries do not control Anthropic's products.

                  1. collingreen · 1790382303 · focus · HN ↗

                     [delayed]
                  2. impossiblefork · 1790383258 · focus · HN ↗

                     Ah, I upvoted specifically because those countries do not control Anthropic's products, and thus reasoned that the comment implied that an adversary, for the purpose of the law, was some external not-quite-enemy type entity, and that application of the law to Anthropic was thus unreasonable, as it obviously is.
         2. novaleaf · 1790361033 · focus · HN ↗

            Anthropic
         3. pas · 1790369041 · focus · HN ↗

            the courts interpret the statute, we have to read their argument where they explain why they think that's not the right definition to focus on. (the "adversary" is in section 3252, but they say that independently from that section 4713 allows determination of exigency.)

            <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media.cadc.uscourts.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;docs&#x2F;2026&#x2F;09&#x2F;26-1049-2194984.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media.cadc.uscourts.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;docs&#x2F;2026&#x2F;09&#x2F;26-104... see page 30

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.