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. kelnos · 1790373259 · focus · HN ↗

               > If you're preventing the military from doing some action because you disagree with it, that makes you an adversary.

               No, it doesn't. The military doesn't have a right to force product requirements and terms of use on companies they contract with.

               If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company. Trying to get them designated a supply-chain risk is just political retribution.

               1. beerandt · 1790375934 · focus · HN ↗

                  >If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company.

                  How is that not what they're saying here by banning it in the supply chain?

                  How else do you prevent any dod purchases or contracts from 'having contact' with a software you don't trust?

                  1. kalkin · 1790394081 · focus · HN ↗

                     Why has this never previously been done to an American company from which the DoD decided not to purchase something?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.