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. Dylan16807 · 1790366447 · focus · HN ↗

            > Anthropic took the position that our military’s decision making power should be subordinate to Anthropic’s constraints.

            Not at all. They want their product kept out of specific decisions because it's not capable.

            1. firesteelrain · 1790368302 · focus · HN ↗

               > They want their product kept out of specific decisions because it's not capable.

               Herein lies the DoW’s point. Anthropic can’t dictate how the DoW conducts business.

               1. tsimionescu · 1790369422 · focus · HN ↗

                  Of course they can. Any supplier is free to set terms for how their products are to be used. The DoD is free to not agree to those terms - but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose - which is what the extreme measure they took represents.

                  1. satvikpendem · 1790370796 · focus · HN ↗

                     > but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose

                     Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.

                     1. tsimionescu · 1790371421 · focus · HN ↗

                        Sure, but also just because Congress gave the government a power to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary circumstance doesn't mean that the government can simply claim the circumstance happens all the time and use the measure whenever it strikes the fancy of some executive.

                        Ultimately whether Anthropic is a true supply chain risk for the United States military is a question of fact, and the courts will have to decide. That the President or Secretary of Defense doesn't like a company doesn't make them a supply chain risk.

                        1. satvikpendem · 1790371501 · focus · HN ↗

                           Sure, which is why the judicial branch reviews such decisions, and has reviewed this one and has come to the conclusion that it was justified. Just because you don't like their ruling doesn't make it not binding.

                           1. tsimionescu · 1790371691 · focus · HN ↗

                              Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution.

                              1. satvikpendem · 1790371980 · focus · HN ↗

                                 A judicial ruling is by definition in accord with the law or constitution (because it literally becomes the law) whether you or I like it or not, if and until such a time as it is overturned.

                                 1. tsimionescu · 1790403543 · focus · HN ↗

                                    A judicial ruling is separate from a law, and it's actually quite common for judicial rulings to be found non-constitutional (or even struck down by a normal higher court, if we're talking in general and not this particular case). In particular, only judges are bound by precedent, and even then, only precedent from their own circuit, not the entire USA. Whereas laws made by contract are binding on everyone, and they apply federally.

                                    1. satvikpendem · 1790410453 · focus · HN ↗

                                       Rulings are a type of law, as in the general term of something written down and set together (literally, leges) that binds one of the populace with their society. As I said, until they are modified by the legislature or struck down by another court, they are the law of the land.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.