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

451–460 of 491 posts

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

#451

Post by mikeryan »

trjordan wrote: post #423
AlexVranas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what th…

"Red lines" does not mean some philosophical line they will not cross. "Redlines" are edits to a contract, sent by lawyers to the other party they're negotiating with. They show up in Word's Track Changes mode as red strikethrough for deleted content. They are negotiating the specifics of a contract, and Anthropic's contract was overly limiting to the DoD, whereas OpenAI's was not.

That’s not how the term is being used here.

In this case “red lines” as a term is being used as “lines than can not be crossed”

Anthropic wanted guardrails on how their tech was used. DOD was saying that wasn’t acceptable.

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

#452

Post by rmm78 »

gchamonlive wrote: post #222
AlexVranas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what th…

[flagged]

>Why DoD and not DoW?

Reddit/Bluesky brigade is in full force here, that's why

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

#453

Post by adleyjulian »

laughing_man wrote: post #239
a2128 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misrepresenting the situation. The debate isn't about whether they should go with another vendor or not. Everybody can agree that they would have the right to pick a different vendor. That's not what they're doing, they're instead trying to force Anthropic into doing what they want by applying a designation previously only reserved for Chinese companies like Huawei as punishment for taking their stance, with…

The Pentagon does this kind of thing all the time. It's just usually not this official.

Completely false. It's the first time a US company has been designated a supply chain risk. Now the likes of Boeing can't use them. Health companies with Medicare/Tricare contracts don't know and will hold off until it's fully litigated.

This is not the government saying they're going with a different vendor, it's the government saying everyone has to choose to either have federal contracts or Claude, they can't have both.

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

#454

Post by fleshmonad »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #440
westmeal wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was America last invaded by a foreign adversary?

This resembles anti-vax logic. We haven’t been invaded because our military maintains a strong deterrence and strategic depth.

Yeah, otherwise the USA would have been invaded by Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and a hundred more, and they all would have a fight over who can have it. Thank god the US defended themselves against those terrible guys. Especially the WMDs were quite the close call, the Iraqis were minutes away from nuking the land of the mart.

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

#455

Post by fleshmonad »

amelius wrote: post #347
scottyah wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you could find a single person working for OpenAI that couldn't find employment elsewhere within a month that pays more than enough for food and shelter. This is a ridiculous statement.

These people are now dependent on their level of income. And they don't like financial uncertainty, just like anyone else. But yeah, I'd expect them to change jobs in the coming year or otherwise I'm going to agree with you.

>These people are now dependent on their level of income.

Kinda sucks if you take a seven figure per annum job and are now dependent on their level of income. Quick question: Is this true for everyone? If I take a job that pays twice of what I earn now, my food spending is going to double for instance? Or is this an american thing?

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

#456

Post by _heimdall »

rectang wrote: post #346
_heimdall wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen this on a ballot and, maybe with the exclusion of Trump, never heard a candidate campaign on anything similar. You probably could make the case that Trump did campaign on it so I'll grant that, but this problem started well before he was even firing people on TV.

Off the top of my head: Joe Arpeio. George Wallace. Rudy Giuliani. Paul Gosar. Louie Gohmert.

George Wallace has been dead for something like 30 years, but yes he was very blatant. I have family that knew him in Montgomery, friends of friends kind of a situation. They don't have good things to say about him.

I don't remember Rudy running on such ideas but maybe he did. Arpeio was running as a sheriff, I would never have voted for him but agreed people did absolutely vote for him in a law enforcement capacity with pretty clear views.

I don't know enough about Gosar or Gohmert to comment well about either.

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

#458

Post by [deleted] »

fleshmonad wrote: post #455
amelius wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people are now dependent on their level of income. And they don't like financial uncertainty, just like anyone else. But yeah, I'd expect them to change jobs in the coming year or otherwise I'm going to agree with you.

>These people are now dependent on their level of income. Kinda sucks if you take a seven figure per annum job and are now dependent on their level of income. Quick question: Is this true for everyone? If I take a job that pays twice of what I earn now, my food spending is going to double for instance? Or is this an american thing?

[deleted]

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

#459

Post by jmward01 »

Nevermark wrote: post #260
jmward01 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never used AI to generate an answer for HN but just this once I thought it would be good to hit ChatGPT specifically and ask it for 'a list of times Sam Altman has gone against his word.' Here was its response: Shift from Nonprofit Mission to For-Profit Orientation – OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit with a charter focused on “benefit to humanity,” but under Altman it created a capped-profit subsidiary, accept…

I found this interesting. But the best approach is start with LLM, then check every point yourself, and summarize with real links. The moment we are ok with LLM output just once, it won't be just once, and things get too murky.

The purpose of the exercise was to see what OpenAI thinks of itself to a large degree. I hope nobody takes the answers at face value considering they clearly have a conflict of interest at their very core. It has turned into an interesting social experiment though. There is a very real instant negative reaction to saying 'an LLM generated this' no matter the context or intent.

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

#460

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fleshmonad wrote: post #454
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resembles anti-vax logic. We haven’t been invaded because our military maintains a strong deterrence and strategic depth.

Yeah, otherwise the USA would have been invaded by Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and a hundred more, and they all would have a fight over who can have it. Thank god the US defended themselves against those terrible guys. Especially the WMDs were quite the close call, the Iraqis were minutes away from nuking the land of the mart.

> otherwise the USA would have been invaded

Yes, invading Hawaii was part of imperial Japanese planning. If you don’t understand that defense spending is still worthwhile even if you don’t blow anything up with it, I’m not sure how we connect.

Post reply on HN