11–20 of 262 posts
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?
What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?
Some judicial pushback against authoritarian policies is good to see.
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https…
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.
> I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
It's a strong signal that the government cannot strong arm privates.