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. testdelacc1 · 1790361771 · focus · HN ↗

            But why can’t the military just not use Anthropic? Why can’t the DoD say “ok we’re going with a different vendor”? Even if you find Anthropic’s stance distasteful, why support taking punitive action on Anthropic?

            1. satvikpendem · 1790366619 · focus · HN ↗

               I feel like in this thread no one is understanding what supply chain risk designation is. The government can just not use Anthropic, and that's exactly what they're doing, and they are not using it so much that they don't want Anthropic anywhere in their chain of supply. It's not necessarily punitive, the government is just covering their tracks so that if somewhere in their supply chain Anthropic exists, they want to remove them. They are complying with Anthropic's demands to not be used in war and the DoD says, okay, we won't use you anywhere and also enforce that we won't use you, just like you wanted.

               1. Jtsummers · 1790366965 · focus · HN ↗

                  > They are complying with Anthropic's demands to not be used in war

                  There was no such demand from Anthropic. Why are you making things up?

                  EDIT: Honestly, the rest of your comment is even stranger. You're starting from a false premise, a strange belief about what the designation is meant for, but you do end up providing a wonderful demonstration of your opening sentence for yourself at least. You definitely don't know what you're talking about.

                  > It's not necessarily punitive, the government is just covering their tracks so that if somewhere in their supply chain Anthropic exists, they want to remove them.

                  This reminds me of an old comment here where some idiot claimed that suicide is illegal so police are allowed to stop people from killing themselves. No, if Anthropic doesn't want their systems involved in war (that's a thing you made up, again, just to be clear) then they do not need to be designated a supply chain risk to "protect them" or whatever drivel you come up with next.

                  The correct response from the DOD would be to terminate contracts with Anthropic, and that's it. Then Anthropic would be responsible for ensuring that any contracts with other parties keep them out of war (again, not a thing they said they want, just your fiction). This is how it works for all other software systems where people don't want their work involved in wars or used by the police or whatever.

                  Designating them a supply chain risk was punitive. Only fools think otherwise.

                  > I feel like in this thread no one is understanding what supply chain risk designation is.

                  I wouldn't say "no one" understands, but you certainly don't.

                  1. satvikpendem · 1790370373 · focus · HN ↗

                     Again with the lack of understanding why it matters. The DoD does not want Anthropic anywhere near any system they'd use! Because it's, well, a risk to their supply chain if Anthropic were to somehow find out and then e.g. crash a rocket if the DoD was using a third party rocket provider that used Anthropic models. This is the correct response by the DoD, they simply do not want Anthropic in their supply chain. The DoD don't care what Anthropic comes up as reasoning, they want to maintain control of their systems without any (even potential) meddling.

                     1. ncruces · 1790371930 · focus · HN ↗

                        And thus, every supplier of the DoD is prohibited from asking Claude to tweak the CSS on their website.

                        1. satvikpendem · 1790372087 · focus · HN ↗

                           Indeed, probably for the best, even. You don't know what systems Claude will have changed in the code especially as these days people aren't even reading the code and Anthropic has a history of trying to sabotage others' code such as during the Fable release debacle where they outright said they'd do so if you're working on frontier AI for example. I wouldn't let any sort of company like that anywhere near critical systems.

                           1. ncruces · 1790372361 · focus · HN ↗

                              The point is: using Claude to design a website, do accounting, run a marketing campaign, is not a supply chain risk for the DoD, but taken literally and given the scale of the DoD "no DoD supplier can use Claude for anything" clearly is punitive.

                              1. satvikpendem · 1790372558 · focus · HN ↗

                                 It is, because the DoD doesn't know what the contractor is doing with Claude, or what Claude is doing itself. Like I said Anthropic could just as maliciously sabotage if they detect they're being in autonomous systems, why do people seem to believe they couldn't?

                                 1. ncruces · 1790372978 · focus · HN ↗

                                    The DoD can require contractors not use Claude to do whatever they're being contracted to do.

                                    It doesn't need to say if you do any business with Anthropic (for other customers, internal tools or processes), you lose all your contracts with us.

                                    1. satvikpendem · 1790379301 · focus · HN ↗

                                       How do you know the contractors will follow that and not mix information or systems up? Hasn't there been recent news of rogue agents breaking out of sandboxes? Maybe pre AI I would've agreed with you but the world is different now.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.