Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

91–100 of 491 posts

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

#91
No wonder they think they’re close to AGI when they think we are that stupid.

> The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control, nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by a human decisionmaker under the same authorities.

This whole sentence does do absolutely nothing its still do what the law allows you. It’s a full on deceptive sentence.

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

#94
post #10
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It will be interesting to see if this permeates out into the general public who already use ChatGPT or maybe it won't since it doesn't mention ChatGPT which is the stronger known brand rather then OpenAI.

More and more of the press is owned by oligarchs who are putting their thumbs on the scales, so that could be a factor.

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

#95
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...

Altman donated a million to the Trump inauguration fund. Brockman is the largest private maga donor. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what's going on here.

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

#96
post #76
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don’t think deploying “80% right” tools for mass surveillance (or anything that can remotely impact human life) counts as lawful in any context.

Just because the US currently lacks a functioning legislative branch doesn’t magically make it OK when gaps in the law are reworded into “national security”

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

#97
post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-...

AI has been killing humans via algorithm for over 20 years. I mean, if a computer program builds the kill lists and then a human operates the drone, I would argue the computer is what made the kill decision

Post reply on HN