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. 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?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.