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. 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?

         1. 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;thedailyeconomy.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;tariff-exemptions-are-big-business-for-big-business&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thedailyeconomy.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;tariff-exemptions-are-bi...

            <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.warren.senate.gov&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;media&#x2F;doc&#x2F;letter_from_senator_warren_to_apple_on_tariff_exceptions.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.warren.senate.gov&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;media&#x2F;doc&#x2F;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 &quot;legitimization&quot;, as technological developments erode the military&#x27;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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.