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

61–70 of 392 posts

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

#61

Post by dmix »

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.

It’s not just admirable it’s the obvious position to take and any alternative is head scratching.

It’s clear that this is mostly a glorified loyalty test over a practical ask by the administration. Strangely reminiscent of Soviet or Chinese policies where being agreeable to authority was more important than providing value to the state.

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

#62

Post by readitalready »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
infamouscow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can also classify it as restricted data -- like nuclear weapons technology. Sure, there will be a court battle, but I don't think these companies want to take that chance. They'll capitulate after the lawyers realize that option is on the table.

> They can also classify it as restricted data -- like nuclear weapons technology. Nuclear weapons technology is restricted under very specific legislative authority, where is the corresponding authority that could be selectively applied to a particular vendors AI models or services?

EDA software, software to design computer chips in general, has been classified as ITAR now under this administration. Trump can do that to AI.

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

#63

Post by thinkthatover »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
infamouscow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can also classify it as restricted data -- like nuclear weapons technology. Sure, there will be a court battle, but I don't think these companies want to take that chance. They'll capitulate after the lawyers realize that option is on the table.

> They can also classify it as restricted data -- like nuclear weapons technology. Nuclear weapons technology is restricted under very specific legislative authority, where is the corresponding authority that could be selectively applied to a particular vendors AI models or services?

agreed but the current administration is pretty adept at using the slimmest margin for justification and benefiting from the fact that the legal process playing out over years is extremely detrimental to everyone but the government

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

#64

Post by chirau »

nerdsniper wrote: post #28
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…

Interesting.

On point 3, are you saying this will dissuade other companies from taking Anthropic's stance? Somehow I actually thought this would set precedent for how to actually stand up to gov. Quite interesting how we see the same situation and come up with totally different conclusions.

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

#65

Post by inerte »

ch4s3 wrote: post #12
soared wrote: post #9

Is this the first company to actually face to face stand up to the current administration?

No, a few law firms targeted by EOs fought them in court last year and won.

Also the case against tariffs, a quick (maybe AI hallucinated) search shows `Victor Owen Schwartz` was part of the challenge.

Democracy isn't dead folks, but it takes more work than usual.

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

#66

Post by cowsandmilk »

bigtex88 wrote: post #49
sixo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is false, it's been around for a while

No it's 100% these idiots pushing their fascist propaganda just like they tried to "rename" the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Most members of the military never even see actual fighting.

It is not a Trumpism. As an example, it has been on Wiktionary since 2008, well before Trump.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=warfighter&actio...

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

#70

Post by chirau »

readitalready wrote: post #60
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.

NSA legally isn't allowed to spy on US citizens directly, due to the NSA being a US military organization and the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the US military from being used as a US policing force. It's one of the hidden and forgotten revelations about the Snowden leaks, where he showed that the NSA had a bunch of filters in their top-secret classified systems to filter out communications from US citizens. Those fi…

How does the filter work? Identity first? As in, do they access the data/activity first and stop when they realize the person is a citizen? Otherwise how do they approach it?
Post reply on HN