Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#241

Post by sampo »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #107
gullibriem wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circus-grade contortionism here.

Is it? Are you claiming nuclear bombs are not both essential and also a risk to national security? Aren't all the AI companies saying that AI poses even a greater threat to humanity than nukes? How can these two not be deeply connected? If a technology poses humanity extinction level of risk of course it will also be a matter of national security - how can it not be?

> Aren't all the AI companies saying that AI poses even a greater threat to humanity?

20-30 years ago eco-terrorists bombed and burned down a number of biological research laboratories and other targets, because of the perceived risks of gene technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front#Notable...

Given all the current talk (and the famous scifi movies) about the risks of AI, I am a bit puzzled how there are no similar activists groups trying to sabotage AI facilities.

What is it that made the risk from gene manipulation feel so much more real and leading to actions, than the current AI risk? The Terminator movie franchise is more famous than any scifi movies about gene technology. (Edit: I guess Jurassic Park franchise surpasses The Terminator.)

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#242

Post by thewebguyd »

strongpigeon wrote: post #132

I can't seem to find what being designated a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security" implies from a legal standpoint. From what I can find, it doesn't seem to be a formal legal status. Curious if anyone knows more.

Basically, if you are a federal contractor, the designation means the DoD can force you to certify that Anthropic tech is not used in the fulfillment of your government work. Because it's just a DoD designation, and an executive order and not added to the NDAA, you can still use Claude for non-government (federal) touching work.

So using Claude Code to write software for the DoD is now a no go, you'd be in breach of procurement directives now.

If they go as far as to convince congress to add Anthropic to the NDAA, that would be a nationwide ban like Huawei making it illegal for any federal contractor to use the tech anywhere in their business.

But for now, even fed contractors can still use Claude in their business, just not directly for government work.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#243

Post by whatsupdog »

Gigachad wrote: post #9
eckelhesten wrote: post #4

Hard decision by Anthropic, but at least they can sleep well at night knowing their products doesn’t kill human beings around the world.

That’s the crazy thing. This whole dispute was over Anthropic saying no to fully automated kill bots. They only required there be a human in the loop to press the button.

[flagged]

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#244

Post by blibble »

tombert wrote: post #224
blibble wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't worry it won't be the world's bank for very long

There's an awful lot of momentum with the USD being the world currency. Even if it eventually declines I think it might take decades, if the British pound is anything to go by.

the UK hadn't fucked off every single one of its allies in the space of 12 months

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#245

Post by tclancy »

techblueberry wrote: post #2

So they are such a risk to national security that no contractor that works with the federal government may use them, but they're going to keep using them for six more months? So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months?

It’s the mob. This is nothing more than, “Nice AI ya got here. Be a shame if sometin’ wuz to happen to it.”

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#246

Post by roxolotl »

whatsupdog wrote: post #207
techblueberry wrote: post #2

So they are such a risk to national security that no contractor that works with the federal government may use them, but they're going to keep using them for six more months? So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months?

[flagged]

The United States has freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. A company can always direct their money, speech, however they like with regards to the government. Can you be sued for breach of contract? Sure. Is it a supply chain risk absolutely not.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#248

Post by bubblewand »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #107
gullibriem wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circus-grade contortionism here.

Is it? Are you claiming nuclear bombs are not both essential and also a risk to national security? Aren't all the AI companies saying that AI poses even a greater threat to humanity than nukes? How can these two not be deeply connected? If a technology poses humanity extinction level of risk of course it will also be a matter of national security - how can it not be?

That's not wha the designation means. You're looking for some interpretation of the term that makes this not a contradiction, and such do exist to be found, but those aren't the correct definition.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#249

Post by outside2344 »

NickAndresen wrote: post #15

"They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as…

The real question we should be asking is what others HAVE agreed to. Has OpenAI just agreed to let the government go crazy with their models?

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#250

Post by aldonius »

nomilk wrote: post #220

> Anthropic's two hard lines: > 1. No mass domestic surveillance of Americans > 2. No fully autonomous weapons (kill decisions without a human in the loop) Surveillance takes place with or without Anthropic, so depriving DoW of Anthropic models doesn't accomplish much (although it does annoy Hegseth). The models currently used in kill decisions are probably primitive image recognition (using neural nets). Consider a…

I thought Anthropic's take on #2 was they don't think the model's good enough yet?
Post reply on HN