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

Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 392 posts

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#21

Post by meowface »

piskov wrote: post #20

[flagged]

This applies to basically every military and company in every country in all of human history. Nearly every single other country tries to spy on every single other country, including on the US. That's just how these things go.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#22

Post by solenoid0937 »

andkenneth wrote: post #5
throw310822 wrote: post #2

From the statement: "Secretary Hegseth has implied this designation would restrict anyone who does business with the military from doing business with Anthropic. The Secretary does not have the statutory authority to back up this statement. Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude…

I'm wondering how this plays out in practice. Does the administration decide to strongarm contractors into cutting all ties? Will that extend to someone like google who provides compute to anthropic? Will the administration just plain ignore any court ruling? (as they've shown they're ready to do recently with the tarrifs situation) If the legal system works as intended, the blast radius isn't too big here and someth…

It does NOT extend to compute.

GCP and AWS cannot use Claude to build anything part of a DoD contract, but they do not need to deny Anthropic access to compute itself.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#23

Post by stavros »

parl_match wrote: post #7

Anthropic's stance here is admirable. If nothing else, their acknowledgement of not being able to predict how these powerful technologies can be abused is a bold and intelligent position to take.

I'd admire them if they took a principled or moral stance on AI. As it stands, they're saying "we don't want fully autonomous weapons because they might kill too many Americans by accident while trying to kill non-Americans" and "we don't want AI to surveil Americans, but anyone else, sure".

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#28

Post by nerdsniper »

chirau wrote: post #13

Doesn't NSA have a backdoor to all these companies by default? I could have sworn I read somewhere years ago that the government demands a backdoor to all US companies if they can't get in on their own.

3 parts to this:

1) The US gov generally does have close partnerships with most large-scale, mature tech companies. Sometimes this is just a division dedicated to handling their requests, often it’s a special portal or API they can use to “lawfully” grab information from for their investigations. Often times these function somewhat like backdoors. Anthropic is large, but not mature. Additional changes must still take place for “backdoor” style partnerships to be effected.

2) The NSA can pretty much use any computer system they set their eyes on - famously including computers that were never connected to the internet secured in the middle of a mountain (Stuxnet). If they wanted to secretly utilize the Claude API without Claude finding out, that is within their capabilities. Google had to encrypt all their internal datacenter traffic to try to prevent the NSA from logging all their server-to-server traffic, after mistakenly thinking their internal networks were secure enough not to need that.

3) This isn’t about being “able” to do whatever the administration wants. This is the administration demonstrating the consequences of perceived insubordination to make other companies think twice about ever trying to limit use of corporate technology.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#29

Post by ocdtrekkie »

rorylawless wrote: post #16

Could this escalate to the point that Anthropic exits the US and sets up shop elsewhere? Or would the company cease to exist before it got to that point?

Would the US government attempt to apply export controls on the technology and prohibit this? I'm sure Lockheed Martin couldn't decide to move their proprietary technology to another country.

Hegseth's statement already leans towards accusations of treason and duplicity, I would say people trying to export the company would face significant risk of arrest or worse.

Post reply on HN