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. 7e · 1790361670 · focus · HN ↗

         It is not the textbook definition, because what Anthropic is doing is not sabotage, malicious, or subversive. Those are the key words in the definition. They are just refusing to add a feature to the military's specification. So their bid falls short of requirements.

         1. chrisjj · 1790365393 · focus · HN ↗

            > They are just refusing to add a feature to the military's specification.

            That fails to accord with the claim:

            >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

            1. gwerbin · 1790371324 · focus · HN ↗

               But that is not at all a reasonable fear. Is it really reasonable to believe that Anthropic, after receiving a government contract, would then proceed to sabotage their own product to not function as contracted? That seems like an utterly ridiculous claim to me, nothing close to "reasonable". There is no charitable way to view this designation except as political punishment and/or as a favor to Altman and Musk.

               1. chrisjj · 1790374359 · focus · HN ↗

                  > would then proceed to sabotage their own product to not function as contracted?

                  Claude terms here: ANTHROPIC EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

                  Like most so-called AI, the Claude program is inherently unreliable. I doubt Anthropic would ever agree to "function as contracted".

                  1. fn-mote · 1790376928 · focus · HN ↗

                     The point to me is that the contract would include the understanding that the system was not 100% reliable.

                     1. chrisjj · 1790416379 · focus · HN ↗

                        OK, but even so, disclaiming FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE lets Anthropic disable any function it wishes.

                        1. ExoticPearTree · 1790428182 · focus · HN ↗

                           That means that the software was not tested for every scenario. Not that the user cannot try to use it in a way it was never intended to.

                           If, on the other hand, Anthropic deliberately blocks the user from doing something, then it is sabotage.

                           1. chrisjj · 1790439223 · focus · HN ↗

                              > That means that the software was not tested for every scenario.

                              Actually I think it means what it says.

                              > Not that the user cannot try to use it in a way it was never intended to

                              No-one said it did. User can try anything he likes. That's beside the point.

                              > If, on the other hand, Anthropic deliberately blocks the user from doing something, then it is sabotage.

                              Well, consider CSAM generation. Anthropic is free to block whatever it likes.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.