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

131–140 of 491 posts

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

#131

Post by el_benhameen »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #20
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...

> However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? The current administration is so incompetent that I find this perfectly believable. I imagine the government signed with OpenAI in order to spite Anthropic. The terms wouldn't actually matter that much if the purpose was petty revenge. I don't know if that's actually what happened here, I just find it plausible.

Absolutely incompetent, but I don’t think that’s the cause here. I think Anthropic’s sin was publicly challenging the administration. They’re huge on optics. You can get away with anything as long as you praise and bow in public.

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

#132

Post by ookblah »

"i told everyone that our boss shouldn't punish our colleague for X while i somehow made a deal with our boss for basically X". how did this get by without someone thinking about how absolutely stupid the optics look.

i guess we are in the times where you can literally just say whatever you want and it just becomes truth, just give it time.

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

#133

Post by stressback »

ed_mercer wrote: post #103
K0balt wrote: 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…

>The models we have now will not do it, Except that they will, if you trick them which is trivial.

I have to call BS here.

They can be coerced to do certain things but I'd like to see you or anyone prove that you can "trick" any of these models into building software that can be used autonomously kill humans. I'm pretty certain you couldn't even get it to build a design document for such software.

When there is proof of your claim, I'll eat my words. Until then, this is just lazy nonsense

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

#135

Post by robmccoll »

_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 think the problem is exactly the opposite. The federal government has the total combined power and scale that it does because we are a massive and complex modern nation. That's inevitable. The problem that we are seeing is that the reigns to that power can be held by too few people it turns out. The checks and balances have ceased to exist. No one is held accountable and people are allowed to be above the law.

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

#136

Post by roxolotl »

_heimdall wrote: post #115
jedberg wrote: post #107

From what I can tell, the key difference between Anthropic and OpenAI in this whole thing is that both want the same contract terms, but Antropic wants to enforce those terms via technology, and OpenAI wants to enforce them by ... telling the Government not to violate them. It's telling that the government is blacklisting the company that wants to do more than enforce the contract with words on paper.

That isn't my understanding. OpenAI and others are wanting to limit the government to doing what is lawful based on what laws the government writes. Anthropic is wanting to draw their own line on what is allowed regardless of laws passed.

I’m so confused by the focus on “all lawful use.” Yea of course a contract without terms of use implicitly is restricted by laws. But contracts with terms of use are incredibly common, if not almost every single contract ever signed.

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

#138

Post by allajfjwbwkwja »

isodev wrote: post #71
Havoc wrote: 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)

There's an obvious difference.

Surveillance within the border is oppressive 1984-style surveillance state behavior.

International spying is a universal tradition.

Post reply on HN