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. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790354633 · focus · HN ↗

      Evidentially not - Anthropic want to do business with the US military, but on their own terms, telling the military what they can and cannot use it for.

      1. hardbass · 1790354916 · focus · HN ↗

         Is that a problem? Are there any special rules (genuinely curious) that allow the military to hijack the management of a private firm?

         1. ThunderSizzle · 1790355374 · focus · HN ↗

            I think the answer is the military finds another vendor willing to deal, or move it in house.

            It's not like Anthropic will be nationalized any more than the bankrupted auto companies of 2008.

            1. hardbass · 1790355496 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't care what the military does. This is pure thuggery and abuse of the rights of private firms. Any time you contract with the government and they don't like your terms, will they designate you a threat?

               1. rayiner · 1790356064 · focus · HN ↗

                  In this context, that designation just means that the DOD won’t use your product and it’s suppliers can’t use your product for DOD-facing activity. That’s not “thuggery” it’s something any buyer can do. Walmart or whatever could do it too.

                  1. joshuamorton · 1790369625 · focus · HN ↗

                     Isn't that textbook Tortious interference with a business relationship?

                     1. rayiner · 1790371015 · focus · HN ↗

                        [delayed]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.