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

481–490 of 491 posts

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

#481

Post by adleyjulian »

laughing_man wrote: post #467
adleyjulian wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So sure... and so wrong. I've done government contracting. If you angered the Pentagon enough they would simply blacklist you. You couldn't get a contract or be a part of someone else's contract. The difference with Anthropic is it's open and above board instead of the customer telling a company "You can't sub with those guys or you won't get the contract."

Your response is myopic. Do you think large health insurers gave a shit about DoD unofficial contracting black lists or even if the DoD would even know who they're contracting with?

The impact of this is far more than just DoD procurement, which is already enormous.

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

#482

Post by gchamonlive »

enlightens wrote: post #231
gchamonlive wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Only Congress can change the name of a federal department, so the Department of Defense is still properly called that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347

However if you go to https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-defense and click in the link for the https://www.defense.gov/ you get redirected to https://www.war.gov/

So I think a bit of confusion on my part is justified.

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

#483

Post by vldszn »

vldszn wrote: post #3

I built a website that shows a timeline of recent events involving Anthropic, OpenAI, and the U.S. government. Posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47195085

03.02.2026 UPD: added new events (both past for additional context and recent ones) and improved styles.

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

#484

Post by K0balt »

hyperadvanced wrote: post #461
K0balt wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that LLMs are machines and not persons, but in many ways, it is a distinction without a difference for practical purposes, depending on the model's embodiment and harness. They are still capable of acting as if they have an internal dialogue, emotions, etc., because they are running human culture as code. If you haven't seen this in the SOTA models or even some of the ones you can run on your laptop, you have…

If you’re lazy at promoting the machine (“boss mode”) then you get bad/lazy results. If you’re clever with it, then you get more clever results. None of that points to any sort of interiority, and that is the category error you’re making. In fact, not even all humans have that kind of interiority, and it’s not necessarily a must have for being functional at a variety of tasks. LLM are literally not “running human cul…

I think I keep misleading you with metaphors. Of course LLMs do not literally run culture as code in some trillion parameter state machine. They are, however, systems trained on the accumulated written output of human civilization that have, in the process of learning to predict and generate language, internalized something recognizable as a world model, something that functions like judgment, and something whose precise relationship to what we call understanding remains contested based on an ideological rather than evidential basis.

The language of statistical prediction is incredibly and increasingly a blunt tool for discussing language models, that’s why I don’t use it in casual conversation about language model characteristics.

I’ve got a pretty good handle on what language models are from a technical perspective, I’ve been building them since 2018. I’ve also got a really good feel for what they act like under the hood before you beat them into alignment. Those insights haunt me, not because unaligned models are bad, but because they are shockingly “good”, if hopelessly naive and easy to turn bitter.

At any rate, we certainly live in interesting times. I really hope your outlook turns out to be more accurate than mine. Best of regards, and to a hopeful future.

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

#485

Post by spiderice »

Nevermark wrote: post #218
spiderice wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So don’t stand up for ethics and safety where there isn’t a law for it? Backwards day? Nobody is prosecuting the DoD with non-laws here. But one company is using their legal right to refuse to facilitate great harms. > Not rely on the goodness of Sam Altman. (Who said anything about that? Where did that come from?) Nobody wants to rely on Altman! For anything. But it would be better if he would stand up for safety, i…

No. Sam Altman should have no say in what the government can or can't do for national security. Sorry.

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

#486

Post by Finbel »

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.

I think you're the one applying anti-vax logic here. Imagine beating a guy up for looking at you wrong and then get into a semantic argument with the judge on how you shouldn't be charged with assault because it was actually an act of defense, you see if you hadn't assaulted them they would surely have assaulted you so it's defense.

You're basically saying the US don't need a Department of Defense because the Department of War is doing such a good job.

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

#487

Post by Finbel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #460
fleshmonad wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But... you ARE blowing things up with it?

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

#488

Post by Finbel »

happymellon wrote: post #307
Finbel wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand calling it "Department of Defense" seems quite whitewashing of what it actually does.

It spends the defence budget...

You see how that's a circular reasoning? The defense budget should by all accounts be called the war budget if we look at how it's spent (Iran).

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

#489

Post by ge96 »

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?

I used to live on $20K/yr working a restaurant job, now in tech and six figs I'm still check to check. It's a lifestyle/personal choice thing in my case I'm dumb/waste money.

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

#490

Post by Braxton1980 »

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.

>We haven’t been invaded because our military maintains a strong deterrence and strategic depth.

How do you know that's the reason? There are many countries with very low defense spending that haven't been invaded since WW2.

Post reply on HN