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. sippingabonedry · 1790354258 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. kittikitti · 1790354953 · focus · HN ↗

         Especially since Anthropic themselves have been literally saying that AI might destroy humanity. Why is it a surprise when people take them at their word and designate them a risk to critical infrastructure?

         Side note, the Anthropic bots are astroturfing the comments.

         1. hardbass · 1790355054 · focus · HN ↗

            I hate communism. I am not a shill for any company. Governments blackmailing private companies is bad no matter what company.

            1. lukewarm707 · 1790355383 · focus · HN ↗

               personally, i think that anthropic is a supply chain risk. if the ceo writes 'pace the frontier' and wants to be in charge of the product, it's very risky (to the customer).

               anthropic treat customers very badly. they have claude lecture the user about the moral law according to anthropic. they change the product all the time. they have safety refusals to degrade functionality, they have mandatory logging so they spy on how it is used.

               it's unusable for a serious application.

               1. hardbass · 1790355794 · focus · HN ↗

                  Irrelevant. Then the government should just refrain from taking the contract, not use violent force to restrict Anthropic doing business.

                  1. lukewarm707 · 1790356028 · focus · HN ↗

                     i don't understand.

                     it is a supply chain risk, so they don't want it in the supply chain.

                     that's logical.

                     1. hardbass · 1790356206 · focus · HN ↗

                        They can just refuse to entertain contracts with them if they dislike it. Why issue a supply chain risk? Its clear and pure thuggery and blackmail.

                        1. petu · 1790360127 · focus · HN ↗

                           Devil's advocate, but Anthropic talks a lot about importance of alignment, so.. How can military ensure that their models don't refuse to work just to be malicious?

                           Anthropic doesn't provide model w/o guardrails, suppliers have to use public version, newer model releases surely know about it's parent company standoff with the military.. how to prevent model from realizing that it's doing something for the military (supplier) and sandbagging and/or subtly sabotaging the results?

                           1. hardbass · 1790361250 · focus · HN ↗

                              That would be stupidity of the government that caused this situation in the first place. Anthropics position was they wanted to have oversight before it was used to kill people. Anthropic was right. The us govt is fucking incompetent and managed to kill an entire girls school using "AI".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.