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. jzb · 1790359108 · focus · HN ↗

      “the military said no and therefore doesn't want anthropic used anywhere in their supply line”

      It’s clearly a punitive measure and has nothing to do with national security.

      If a supplier uses Anthropic to develop a product, how does that pose a risk to the DoD or national security? The DoD can specify that a third party system can’t rely on Anthropic for DoD use without designating the company a supply risk. It was very clear that the administration was punishing the company for saying “no”.

      1. frumplestlatz · 1790359216 · focus · HN ↗

         Anthropic took the position that our military’s decision making power should be subordinate to Anthropic’s constraints.

         Any dependency on a company that thinks they have that moral authority and has the technical means to enforce it is absolutely a risk to the supply chain.

         If you want to blame someone or something for this, we should start with Dario and “effective altruism”.

         1. Dylan16807 · 1790366447 · focus · HN ↗

            > Anthropic took the position that our military’s decision making power should be subordinate to Anthropic’s constraints.

            Not at all. They want their product kept out of specific decisions because it's not capable.

            1. firesteelrain · 1790368302 · focus · HN ↗

               > They want their product kept out of specific decisions because it's not capable.

               Herein lies the DoW’s point. Anthropic can’t dictate how the DoW conducts business.

               1. tsimionescu · 1790369422 · focus · HN ↗

                  Of course they can. Any supplier is free to set terms for how their products are to be used. The DoD is free to not agree to those terms - but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose - which is what the extreme measure they took represents.

                  1. firesteelrain · 1790369994 · focus · HN ↗

                     > but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk

                     Yes they are free to do that. You have to blame Congress for giving them that authority under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act and specifically 41 U.S.C. § 4713.

                     But Claude’s ToS didn’t prohibit use of Claude for sensitive military operation but it was coded to do so. It was part of the government’s evidence

                     1. tsimionescu · 1790371246 · focus · HN ↗

                        No, they can only do that if a company is a true supply chain risk. Not everyone some idiot in the government doesn't like is a such a huge risk to the country that they can be banned from doing business with anyone doing business with the DoD.

                        Ultimately this is for the courts to decide, and the current decision is not final. And while the two Trump-nominated judges agreed with you, the other judge agrees with me - so at least we can say that neither my nor your position is legally absurd.

                        1. firesteelrain · 1790371639 · focus · HN ↗

                           I don’t use those words but I agree it’s unsettled.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.