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

271–280 of 392 posts

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

#271

Post by teiferer »

ParentiSoundSys wrote: post #138
jmount wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many tech companies have the "high values" screed that it really just seems like a standard step in the money plan.

Practically the entire tech industry, including many of the higher ups currently camping out on the right, used to be firmly in a sort of centrist-with-social-justice-characteristics camp. Then many of those same people enthusiastically stood with Trump at his inauguration. It's completely reasonable that people have their doubts now. It's also completely reasonable to expect that if Anthropic is the real deal and op…

> enthusiastically stood with Trump

I think "enthusiastically" looks different. They had to choose between kissing Trumps butt to make good business for 4 years or see their companies at a severe disadvantage. I'm not saying what they did was good, nor do I support it. But from a business angle it's not hard to see why they chose to do that. If you'd ask them privately off the record then I'm sure most of them would tell you that Trump is an idiot and dangerous.

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

#272

Post by jjmarr »

thirtygeo wrote: post #88
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #68

Anthropic is welcome to set up shop here in Canada! I hear Victoria BC is great. Absolutely brimming, overflowing with technology talent

Actually why is nobody in Cali just trying to join Canada - would be better for everyone in terms of more similar culture and values. Weird that it isn't discussed more

50% paycut for similar cost of living. Do you want to put 3 kids into a 2-bedroom apartment on your US$120k salary, with $10k of RSUs the government takes 53% of? In addition to a 13% sales tax?

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

#273

Post by verdverm »

cmxch wrote: post #252
verdverm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Epstein administration has a very poor success record in court, I would expect Anthropic to win on vindictive prosecution or similar.

And the government will win when they strip clearances and ignore said courts. Anthropic will then find out that you don’t oppose a hyperpower - the United States.

hyperpower? please

The entire world is waking to the reality of the hypocrisy and unreliably. Look how fast Trump TACO'd when China stopped the flow of rare earths.

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

#274

Post by solidsnack9000 »

surgical_fire wrote: post #126
netinstructions wrote: post #83

This is kind of crazy. Instead of just cancelling a mutually-agreed upon contract where Anthropic refused to bow to sudden new demands, the Dept of Defense went straight to the nuclear option: threatening to label an American tech company as a "supply chain risk" which is a heavy-handed tactic usually reserved for foreign adversaries (think Huawei or DJI). It's also incoherent that the DoD/DoW was threatening to invo…

A question - being considered a supply chain risk is the same as being sanctioned? Or does it only affect their ability to be a defense supplier in the US (even if transitively?) It's an honest question by the way - not trying to throw any gothas. Just trying to understand if comoanies or people that don't orbit defense contracting are free to operate with Anthropic still or risk being sanctioned too.

It's not the same thing as being sanctioned. In broad outline, a supply chain risk is a company that can't sell to or have its products or components resold to USG; whereas, a sanctioned entity is one that can't do business with anyone -- anyone who does so will be punished.

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

#276

Post by carefulfungi »

xXSLAYERXx wrote: post #157
fooster wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Renee Good or Alex Pretti or any of the other innocents that the brownshirts killed will pick strawberries ever again.

Yes I understand. And given the heaviness of the situation I could have chosen a better way to phrase that I completely disagree with it being evidence that we're on the road to fascism.

What would have to occur, hypothetically, for you to conclude that the US is on the road to fascism?

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

#277

Post by Sl1mb0 »

jimmydoe wrote: post #187
19123127 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did they work with Palantir then, which is the integrator in the DoD? It does not take a genius to figure out where this was going. I don't know why a personal testimony to the effect that "these are the good guys" needs to be at the top of every Anthropic thread. With respect to astroturfing and stealth marketing they are clearly the bad guys.

The further away from God, the more need to believe there are good guys.

God has been used as a justification for a lot of human suffering.

My personal belief is that the closer to god you are; the more easily you can justify evil. How could you not? If my entire belief system is derived from faith, then there are *no* conclusions I could not come to, and therefore anything can be justified.

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

#280

Post by skissane »

ajam1507 wrote: post #227
lich_king wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the co…

> However, in this instance, it does seem that Anthropic is walking away from money. The supply chain risk designation will be overturned in court, and the financial fallout from losing the government contracts will pale in comparison to the goodwill from consumers. Not to mention that giving in would mean they lose lots of their employees who would refuse to work under those terms. In this case, the principles are l…

> The supply chain risk designation will be overturned in court,

I'm honestly uncertain how the courts will rule. You could be right, but it isn't guaranteed. I think a judicial narrowing of it is more likely than a complete overturn.

OTOH, I think almost guaranteed it will be watered-down by the government. Because read expansively, it could force Microsoft and AWS to choose between stopping reselling Claude vs dropping the Pentagon as a customer. I don't think Hegseth actually wants to put them in that position – he probably honestly doesn't realise that's what he's potentially doing. In any event, Microsoft/AWS/etc's lobbyists will talk him out of it.

And the more the government waters it down, the greater the likelihood the courts will ultimately uphold it.

> and the financial fallout from losing the government contracts will pale in comparison to the goodwill from consumers.

Maybe. The problem is B2B/enterprise is arguably a much bigger market than B2C. And the US federal contracting ban may have a chilling effect on B2B firms who also do business with the federal government, who may worry that their use of Claude might have some negative impact on their ability to win US federal deals, and may view OpenAI/xAI (and maybe Google too) as safer options.

I guess the issue is nobody yet knows exactly how wide or narrow the US government is going to interpret their "ban on Anthropic". And even if they decide to interpret it relatively narrowly, there is always the risk they might shift to a broader reading in the future. Possibly, some of Anthropic's competitors may end up quietly lobbying behind the scenes for the Trump admin to adopt broader readings of it.

Post reply on HN