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. tcdent · 1790355688 · focus · HN ↗

      As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.

      Which sounds sensible on the surface, until you realize that all military organizations have extensive experience with that exact question, and have spent centuries refining their practices. Deferring that to a private company is actually a major regression and a concerning role to pass on to the public regardless.

      FWIW I am not pro military, but it's a prominent part of human culture and not going away anytime soon. I do understand the nature of professions, however, and only one of these groups has made the interpretation of this question their specialization.

      1. cubefox · 1790357287 · focus · HN ↗

         > As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.

         This is false. Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

         1. tcdent · 1790357753 · focus · HN ↗

            > [Anthropic] would not permit its technology to power fully autonomous weapons without human oversight over targeting and firing decisions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the Pentagon should have unrestricted access to AI systems for “any lawful purpose” and that a private contractor should not be permitted to dictate how the military can use its technology.

            It's about them maintaining an interpretation of law at all.

            Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."

            <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pearlcohen.com&#x2F;anthropic-sues-department-of-defense-over-supply-chain-risk-designation&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pearlcohen.com&#x2F;anthropic-sues-department-of-defe...

            1. cubefox · 1790362077 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; Simpletons read that as: &quot;The DOW wants to kill people with AI.&quot;

               The DoW actually used AI in the Iran war, which led to them attacking a school and killing more than a hundred childrem. That&#x27;s exactly what Anthropic wanted them to prevent. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;graphics&#x2F;2026-iran-school-attack&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;graphics&#x2F;2026-iran-school-attack&#x2F;

               1. tcdent · 1790370529 · focus · HN ↗

                  The DoD has been using AI for engagement since the 80s. Maven, the system used in your example has been active since 2017.

                  None of those systems pull the trigger. They assemble data for human review.

                  1. noahbp · 1790374596 · focus · HN ↗

                     You seem to be misunderstanding the facts. Claude was already used by the US Military, under an existing contract between Anthropic and the US Department of War.

                     The core dispute was the US Military deciding it needed to renegotiate this contract, but without Anthropic&#x27;s two red lines: No fully autonomous weapons (i.e., zero humans in the loop), and no mass domestic surveillance.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.