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. sippingabonedry · 1790358153 · focus · HN ↗

      > I know everyone says this is political but it actually seems like a textbook designation

      It literally is a textbook definition, signed into US law:

      “Supply chain risk,” means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system (see 10 U.S.C. 3252).

      To add onto what another commenter said, the pen analogy would be more like the manufacturer designing pens that stopped working when used to sign strike orders they disagreed with.

      1. hiddencost · 1790368594 · focus · HN ↗

         ??? What are you talking about. Anthropic isn't an adversary and they're not required to sell for purposes they don't want to. It's not sabotage and it's not malicious.

         This is a designation reserved for terrorists and the link.

         1. beerandt · 1790370498 · focus · HN ↗

            If you're preventing the military from doing some action because you disagree with it, that makes you an adversary.

            Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies.

            1. SpicyLemonZest · 1790372024 · focus · HN ↗

               Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies. If you discover that the military is using your capacitors to make rocket launchers, so you introduce a manufacturing defect that will cause them to fail at high heat, you're a supply chain risk and can be rightfully designated as such.

               The converse does not qualify. If I advertise a chemical with an admixture that prevents it from being used to make explosives, the military has absolutely no right to demand that I produce a version of that chemical without the admixture. Selling a product which can't do what the DoD wants does not make me a supply chain risk, no matter how easy it would be for me to make a different product that's fit for their purpose.

            2. actionfromafar · 1790373142 · focus · HN ↗

               So... don't buy from Anthropic? How many of the US population is an adversary, according to your definition?

               Say everyone had something to sell and DOD wanted to buy it. But some people wouldn't make the product changes DOD demanded. Now, they are the adversary of the DOD?

               I hear Trumplandia is nice this time of year.

               1. daedrdev · 1790378532 · focus · HN ↗

                  The point is the DoD is telling its suppliers not to use it because the supplier of your supplier is your supplier. That’s what this does

                  1. actionfromafar · 1790416491 · focus · HN ↗

                     There must be precedent if this is so normal.

                     1. daedrdev · 1790426957 · focus · HN ↗

                        The DOD keeps extreme control over their supply chain. For many things it requires specific approval to be in the supply chain in the first place

                        1. actionfromafar · 1790502128 · focus · HN ↗

                           How many suppliers have they designated a supply chain risk?
            3. kelnos · 1790373259 · focus · HN ↗

               > If you're preventing the military from doing some action because you disagree with it, that makes you an adversary.

               No, it doesn't. The military doesn't have a right to force product requirements and terms of use on companies they contract with.

               If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company. Trying to get them designated a supply-chain risk is just political retribution.

               1. beerandt · 1790375934 · focus · HN ↗

                  >If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company.

                  How is that not what they're saying here by banning it in the supply chain?

                  How else do you prevent any dod purchases or contracts from 'having contact' with a software you don't trust?

                  1. fn-mote · 1790377019 · focus · HN ↗

                     To be credible, you need to address the point that this prevents subcontractors from using it to code.
                  2. kalkin · 1790394081 · focus · HN ↗

                     Why has this never previously been done to an American company from which the DoD decided not to purchase something?
            4. handoflixue · 1790374073 · focus · HN ↗

               > Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies.

               But they're not actively handicapping it. They're saying it would be wildly irresponsible to assume it's "otherwise capable".

               And very critically: they have taken zero steps to "actively handicap" it in any way.

               1. beerandt · 1790376356 · focus · HN ↗

                  Wanting veto power in execution is functionally the same as actively handicapping it, regardless of how implemented.
               2. throwaway63486 · 1790376498 · focus · HN ↗

                  The Claude they sell to me seems quite actively handicapped when I ask it questions about cyber security or biology.
               3. knollimar · 1790431150 · focus · HN ↗

                  am I insane with all these people making the actively handicapping argument? Doesn't openAI sell to them the actively handicapped version?

                  Like they're okay with the product being designed to be incapable but not terms limiting a product.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.