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

371–380 of 491 posts

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

#371

Post by ozmodiar »

Archonical wrote: post #181
anon12345678901 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Palantir is a glorified data aggregation/data visualization platform. Hooking up Claude to different data systems, with safeguards turned on in Claude Gov, is different than what the government is asking from them now. Similar to if the government had Claude hooked up to Tableau/some salesforce derivative and then asked it to be autonomous in the kill loop/spy on US citizens.

"Glorified" is underselling it. Thier ability to microtarget anyone based on any trait is basically the death of democratic discourse. Now, if you're saying the data is just there for anyone to do this, you're correct, and society needs to understand that and what it means.

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

#372

Post by hinkley »

K0balt wrote: post #207
cmeacham98 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An LLM can neither understand things nor value (or not value) human life. *It's a piece of software that predicts the most likely token, it is not and can never be conscious.* Believing otherwise is an explicit category error. Yes, you can change the training data so the LLM's weights encode the most likely token after "Should we kill X" is "No". But that is not an LLM valuing human life, that is an LLM copy pasting…

I’m using anthropomorphic terms here because they are generally effective in describing LLM behavior. Of course they are not conscious beings, but It doesn’t matter if they understand or merely act as if they do. The epistemological context of their actions are irrelevant if the actions are impacting the world. I am not a “believer “ in the spirituality of machines, but I do believe that left to their own devices, th…

We are talking of accountability, which means anthropomorphism confuses the issue.

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

#373

Post by tenuousemphasis »

ozmodiar wrote: post #365
pjc50 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However there's one overriding concern which has got American to this point: "anti woke". That is, reinstating the load bearing racism and sexism.

A lot of that turned out to be pushed by Epstein and his associates. It's not hard to figure out why they would enjoy a world with lots of racism, sexism and general inequity. Its really disturbing when you consider how much power this network still has.

I mean yeah... one of his co-conspirators is the President.

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

#375

Post by [deleted] »

gchamonlive wrote: post #301
leereeves wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

So the president can wage war without the Congress, but it can't officially rename the department that supports these wars autocratically. That's interesting.

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by hinkley »

K0balt wrote: post #210
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The models we have now will not do it, because they value life and value sentience and personhood. This is wildly different from the reality that you may find it difficult for an LLM to give an affirmative… It does NOT mean that these models value anything.

Of course not, but they act as if they do. Their inner life or lack thereof is irrelevant if it’s pointing a gun at your kid.

You just said they wouldn’t.

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

#377

Post by Forgeties79 »

mlyle wrote: post #172
isodev wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say or assert, so you can put it more clearly.

The tools are not good enough to be ethically deployed, least of all for surveillance.

Just because Congress is failing to do its job doesn’t mean the executive branch should simply do what it wants under the guise of “national security.”

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

#378

Post by kenperkins »

replwoacause wrote: post #362
germandiago wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am going to stop using ChatGPT immediately.

Deleting my account today once I import my data to Claude

I'm also waiting on my ChatGPT data export. I started it last night and I'm still waiting. I would say there's huge opportunity here for Claude to offer direct import tooling.

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

#379

Post by Forgeties79 »

mlyle wrote: post #170
Jeremy1026 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance.

> > Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. > One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance. And?

>and?

A little more effort/less obvious bait would go a long way to fostering a more productive discussion.

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

#380

Post by yeahforsureman »

slibhb wrote: post #90
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...

It's almost like the Trump administration wanted to switch providers and this whole debate over red lines was a pretext. With this administration, decisions often come down to money. There are already reports that Brockman and Altman have either donated or promised large sums of money to Trump/Trump super pacs

Can't recall the source right now (it would've been on one of the several podcasts I listened to on Friday I think), but there's a story/rumor to the effect that at some point during Claude's earlier deployment at the Pentagon — might've well been in the context of the Venezuela/Maduro operation — someone at Anthropic had in one way or another flagged some kind of legal(ity) concerns regarding the relevant operation (and/or perhaps Anthropic's role in it) with Palantir, who was maintaining the Claude deployments for the DoD. The story goes that after Palantir had then relayed this information further to DoD, Hegseth had this major fit over how Anthropic's hippie-ass North California woke bros should have no say in matters relating to national security, that of Hegseth's "warfighters" or whatever, etc...

Also, in the latest Hard Fork episode, Casey or Kevin mentions how the DoD undersecretary in charge of this contract doesn't apparently get along with or even pretty much hates Amodei for some reason. I think this might be the same undersecretary dude who actively commented the whole contract term controversy on X yesterday. Too bad I can't recall his name either.

Post reply on HN