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. kelnos · 1790373757 · focus · HN ↗

                        Well, that's what this court case is about. The government believes they have that power, and Anthropic and others believe they don't. You clearly believe they do, and I clearly believe they don't. It's fine to disagree. Ultimately SCOTUS may decide on this, and that'll be the final word. Not that SCOTUS is always correct in its rulings, but at the end of the day, their decision is final.

                        1. satvikpendem · 1790379230 · focus · HN ↗

                           Indeed. Not sure why people in this thread are saying it's not in accordance with the law when at least as of this current ruling it is.

                           1. SpicyLemonZest · 1790389756 · focus · HN ↗

                              Because this is an illegitimate ruling with no legal basis issued by an aspiring dictator's cronies.

                              1. satvikpendem · 1790410493 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Lots of people also seem to want to deny something they don't like being ruled correctly.

                                 1. SpicyLemonZest · 1790438769 · focus · HN ↗

                                    I've got no issue siding against Anthropic when they're wrong! Anthropic had a similar dispute with Bessent over the Fable launch, and there I take the government's side without reservation. If the government thinks they've found a national security problem with your highly capable new model, obviously you should agree to voluntarily withdraw it until they're satisfied, even if your best and correct guess is that it's just a minor jailbreak.

                                    But they're not wrong here.

                                    1. satvikpendem · 1790442319 · focus · HN ↗

                                       They are wrong because Anthropic has a history of trying to sabotage people they don't trust, see the Fable release and the backlash from that.

                                       1. SpicyLemonZest · 1790444972 · focus · HN ↗

                                          [delayed]

                                          1. satvikpendem · 1790475330 · focus · HN ↗

                                             > The backlash to the Fable release saw a number of social media influencers promoting a similar lie, which I frankly suspect was part of a coordinated Trumpist media effort.

                                             Alright, not worth talking to conspiracy theorists (even if Anthropic literally said so in their release blog posts).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.