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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 491 posts

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

#121

Post by _heimdall »

siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

Exactly, and its easy to hide behind things like the Patriot Act if challenged legally.

Its interesting to see the parties flip in real time. The Democrats seem to be realizing why a small federal government is so important, a fact that for quite a few years their were on the other side of.

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

#122

Post by Birthdayboy1932 »

There are many claims here that Anthropic wants to enforce things with technology and OpenAI wants contract enforcement and that OpenAI's contract is weaker.

Can someone help me understand where this is coming from? Anthropic already had a contract that clearly didn't have such restrictions. Their model doesn't seem to be enforcing restrictions either as it seems like their models have been used in ways they don't like. This is not corroborated, I imagine their model was used in the recent Mexico and Venezuela attacks and that is what's triggering all the back and forth.

Also, Dario seemingly is happy about autonomous weapons and was working with the government to build such weapons, why is Anthropic considered the good side here?

https://x.com/morqon/status/2027793990834143346

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

#123

Post by user3939382 »

anon12345678901 wrote: post #102
throwaway911282 wrote: post #87

People forget Anthropic made a deal with PALANTIR. And when this was caught, they just spinned the PR to their favor. While OAI may not be seen as the good guys, I really hope people see the god complex of Dario and what Anthropic has done.

Right. My understanding is that the Palantir deployment of Anthropic models was intended for in-theater use on classified systems.

Welcome to the theater ie Earth.

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

_heimdall wrote: post #121
siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

Exactly, and its easy to hide behind things like the Patriot Act if challenged legally. Its interesting to see the parties flip in real time. The Democrats seem to be realizing why a small federal government is so important, a fact that for quite a few years their were on the other side of.

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by aardvarkr »

Nevermark wrote: post #30
cube00 wrote: 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…

This is the same government caught spying on its citizens by Snowden so I don’t trust them at all.

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

#127

Post by catlifeonmars »

_heimdall wrote: post #121
siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

Exactly, and its easy to hide behind things like the Patriot Act if challenged legally. Its interesting to see the parties flip in real time. The Democrats seem to be realizing why a small federal government is so important, a fact that for quite a few years their were on the other side of.

I don’t see the connection to a small federal government here. Mind connecting the dots?

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

#128

Post by spiderice »

Nevermark wrote: post #30
cube00 wrote: 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…

That seems exactly what it should be. The United States military should be able to do what the law allows. If we don't think they should be allowed to do something, we should pass laws. Not rely on the goodness of Sam Altman.

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

#130

Post by pibaker »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.

Per levels.fyi, median salary of most openAI positions are above 300k. Even "technical writers" have a median pay of 197k. I searched around the internet and it seems like even entry level positions receive well above 150k. Apart from people with severe lifestyle bloat or an unholy number of dependents I doubt too many people working there will face immediate financial difficulties if they quit.

Anyway, it is also amusing to hear tech people defend their right to earn some of the fattest salaries on this planet using the smol bean technique after a decade of "why wouldn't the West Virginian coal miner just learn to code." It was always about maintaining the lifestyle of yearly Japan vacations and MacBook upgrades and never about subsistence.

Post reply on HN