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. roenxi · 1790379257 · focus · HN ↗

                        Congress can do that, can't it? Why can't it? It could declare all competing religions as terrorist organisations.

                        Obviously it'd be immoral, unorthadox and impractical but I expect Congress has a long history of promoting and stamping out ideologies and they can do it. What little I know about the civil rights era springs to mind.

                        1. randallsquared · 1790383747 · focus · HN ↗

                           Legally, Congress cannot do that, as long as it is "respecting" some religion. It's true that the US Constitution is more used as an excuse than upheld, but at least the language is pretty plain.

                           1. roenxi · 1790388396 · focus · HN ↗

                              [delayed]

                              1. randallsquared · 1790390096 · focus · HN ↗

                                 I don't disagree.

                                 However, I do think there is an expectation in Americans' minds that Congress is governed by the Constitution, and believing makes it so. Mostly.

                                 1. collabs · 1790400825 · focus · HN ↗

                                    The fact that Congress is currently abdicating its responsibility does not mean that it is actually powerless. Technically, Congress has tremendous powers if it chooses to wield it. SCOTUS can try to rule a law is unconstitutional but Congress can impeach and remove justices at any time. Of course, we hope Congress members will pay the price when it comes time for reelection but at the time of this decision, as long as they can somehow remain united, Congress reigns supreme.

                                    1. AnthonyMouse · 1790452703 · focus · HN ↗

                                       > Congress can impeach and remove justices at any time.

                                       The impeachment process requires a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate, and then any replacement would have to be nominated by the President rather than Congress. Meanwhile the existing decision stands, and even the dissenting Supreme Court Justices (if there were any) should follow it as a result of stare decisis, and might even be inclined to because removing their colleagues under those circumstances could make them uneasy.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.