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. tintor · 1790357052 · focus · HN ↗

      Non-sense. Pentagon has many many uses of AI besides autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance, which Anthropic doesn't restrict. ie: intelligence analysis, target selection, payroll, inventory, research, supply chain and logistics, medical, bureaucracy, ...

      1. themaninthedark · 1790365911 · focus · HN ↗

         Right but the military wants to be able to use a tool they are paying for in all cases, not just ones the manufacturer thinks they should.

         If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now.

         Edit add: What is targeting? What is surveillance?

         If someone in the intelligence analysis department uses AI to generate a report, then someone else uses that report for targeting did they just break the terms? Where is that line?

         Much easier for the Pentagon to say no.

         1. Dylan16807 · 1790366632 · focus · HN ↗

            > If I sold steel to the Pentagon but then tried to say they they couldn't use it for ships and tanks but they are free to use for warehouses they would react the same way as they are doing now.

            They sure as hell shouldn't! Selling steel for any use except ships and tanks is a little odd but it's not a risk.

            (I'm ignoring the "but then" because this was about future sales not previous ones.)

         2. cptroot · 1790366737 · focus · HN ↗

            Your "but then" is off-base. This is selling steel for the express purpose of nuclear reactors, with a contractual clause against its use in tanks, and the US government deciding that it doesn't feel like abiding by the rules in the contract.
         3. mitthrowaway2 · 1790368471 · focus · HN ↗

            It's funny, I buy some software and the license says "for student and non-commercial use only", which lets me get it for $50 instead of the $5000 that an enterprise would pay. But I can just ignore that clause or declare them a supply-chain risk if they try to hold me to it, because now that they've taken my $50, who are they to dictate how I use it? I can do whatever I want, not just what the vendor thinks I should, right? A contact is just paper, right?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.