Live data from Hacker News

We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

twitter.com

71–80 of 491 posts

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#71
post #64

Very much feels like OpenAI trying to PR manage their weaker ethical stance

Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border - none of them have a problem being unethical internationally (all the red lines talk is about what they don’t want to do in the us)

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#72
post #8

From that same X thread: Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines [1] OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthopic based on Altman's statements [2]. However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? [1]: https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2027846013650932195#m [2]: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/27/nx-s1-5729118/trump-anthropic...

Sam Altman has no scruples. Dark Triad personality. No reason to believe anything he says.

The same goes for anybody still working at OpenAI past Monday morning 9 am.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#73
post #8

From that same X thread: Our agreement with the Department of War upholds our redlines [1] OpenAI has the same redlines as Anthopic based on Altman's statements [2]. However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? [1]: https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2027846013650932195#m [2]: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/27/nx-s1-5729118/trump-anthropic...

> more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must underg…

Yep. It's the difference between "Don't do these things, regardless of what the law says." and "Do whatever you want, but please follow your own laws while you do it".

As Paul Graham said, "Sam gets what he wants" and "He’s good at convincing people of things. He’s good at getting people to do what he wants." and "So if the only way Sam could succeed in life was by [something] succeeding, then [that thing] would succeed"

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#74
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must underg…

Easy way to summarize it: "You're not allowed to do these things, except for all of the laws that allow you to do these things."

Let me clear it up

The Trump administration acts cartoonish and fickle. They can easily punish one group, and then agree to work with another group on the same terms, to save face, while continuing to punish the first group. It doesn't have to make consistent sense. This is exactly how they have done with tariffs for example.

Secondly, the terms are technically different because "all lawful uses" are preserved in this OpenAI deal, and it's just lawyering to the public. Really it was about the phrase "all lawful uses", internally at the DoD I'm sure. So the lawyers were able to agree to it and the public gets this mumbo-jumbo.

I thought mass surveillance of Americans was unlawful by the DoD, CIA and NSA? We have the FBI for that, right? :)

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#75

I do think OpenAI's brand is dumpstered.

The way OpenAI and Anthropic are positioned in public discourse always reminded me of the Uber vs Lyft saga … Uber temporarily lost double digit marketshare in the US during a viral boycott over their perceived support of the Trump 1.0 admin. Heads did roll at the exec/founder level but eventually the company recovered.

unfortunately I think that's probably a good analogy

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#76
post #71
post #64

Very much feels like OpenAI trying to PR manage their weaker ethical stance

Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border - none of them have a problem being unethical internationally (all the red lines talk is about what they don’t want to do in the us)

? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally.

Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic.

(But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus).

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must underg…

This implies that OpenAI must build and release and maintain a model without any safeguards, which is probably the big win and maybe something Anthropic never wants to do.

I don't think that is the correct conclusion.

But they won't be releasing it, they will be leasing it to DOJ and all their other customers will get the safeguarded model.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#78
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optimistic. My money is on everyone forgetting about this by next week.

It depends. Normies don't care, but a bunch of them are free tier users anyway. The people who care are disproportionately on the $200/month moneymaking plan; losing a bunch of them could hurt, especially if it snowballs the consensus that Claude Code is the serious choice for software engineering. For one small data point, my Signal GC of software buddies had four people switch their subscriptions from Codex to Clau…

How many $200/month does the US government cover though? I'd say probably a lot. Especially with how much extra the DoD will pay to get OpenAI to cross it's "red lines" - on day two.

Re: We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk

#80

What's the potential that this puts things on even shakier ground? I'm sure the fallout wont really effect their bottom line that much in the end, but if it did - wouldn't making the US Gov't their largest acct make them more susceptible to doing everything they said? I'm guessing they probably would regardless of how this played out, though.

~100%.
Post reply on HN