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. comnetxr · 1790361804 · focus · HN ↗

      I think the better analogy is an insane nuclear power plant manager deciding it wants to buy pens to use as neutron-flux regulator rods — because after all, a pen is functionally a pencil and a pencil is made of graphite.

      Then the pen manufacturer hears about this and says “Our pens are not made of graphite and are not suitable to be used in nuclear reactors”, to which the reactor owner says “it’s fine, they fit in the graphite rod holes, and we’re just using until the next generation of pens come out which will do an even better job”, and then the pen manufacturer says “I’m not going to sell you any pens until you agree that they will be used only writing.”

      1. Atreiden · 1790363452 · focus · HN ↗

         This is the most accurate parallel as far as I can tell. I've not seen any evidence that Anthropic deliberately built automated systems or escape hatches that literally prevent the US Government from using Claude to do these things. Other than the basic AI Safety mechanisms in place for everyone/general use. It's almost the reverse, where they explicitly don't want to strip away guardrails that say things like "don't kill people".

         The intent and framing matters a lot here. Refusal to remove safety features is a LOT different than deliberately building mechanisms to sabotage would-be operations.

         1. spiderice · 1790368797 · focus · HN ↗

            It doesn't seem like you understand what a supply chain risk designation is for.

            It's to ensure that companies that the DoW relies on don't build on top of a product that isn't fit for DoW work.

            You seem to be agreeing with this designation in a way. The DoW essentially said "Pen company won't let us use their pens as neutron-flux regulator rods, so anyone building power plants for us isn't allowed to use these pens as neutron-flux regulator rods".

            What is the problem you have with that?

            1. ipython · 1790374101 · focus · HN ↗

               So the DoW should have the ability to perform mass surveillance on American citizens?

               Mind you, that is not the DoW’s charter. How would a restriction on that be “unfit” as you say?

               The DoW is perfectly within their rights not to purchase anthropic products. That’s different than labeling them a supply chain risk.

               1. polski-g · 1790374904 · focus · HN ↗

                  The DOW should (and does) have ability to do anything and everything that Congress has said they can do.

                  1. AnthonyMouse · 1790375652 · focus · HN ↗

                     So, for example, if Congress says the military can require the entire domestic population to be Catholic and kill anyone who isn't... ?

                     That's not how it works.

                     1. zahlman · 1790376516 · focus · HN ↗

                        It actually is, and this is why there are separate judicial, executive and legislative branches to put those checks and balances on each other instead.

                        1. AnthonyMouse · 1790376763 · focus · HN ↗

                           Your argument is that if Congress passes a law that says the military can summarily execute non-Catholics, the military should have the ability to do that, i.e. the courts or the public shouldn't stop them?

                           1. zahlman · 1790376959 · focus · HN ↗

                              No, not at all. How did you get "the courts shouldn't stop them" from "that's why there's a separate judicial branch to impose the checks and balances"??? That's literally the opposite of what I said.

                              1. AnthonyMouse · 1790377178 · focus · HN ↗

                                 > The DOW should (and does) have ability to do anything and everything that Congress has said they can do.

                                 > Me: That's not how it works.

                                 > You: It actually is

                                 1. zahlman · 1790451539 · focus · HN ↗

                                    I chose to read the comment charitably. The natural understanding of "everything X says they can do" is limited by external restrictions on what X is supposed to be able to authorize.

                                    1. AnthonyMouse · 1790452915 · focus · HN ↗

                                       That reading would make it a meaningless tautology. They're allowed to do anything they're allowed to do.

                                       Which seems especially unfavorable in context, since "the ability to perform mass surveillance on American citizens" is naturally the sort of thing they ought not be allowed to do.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.