Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–137 of 137 posts

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#131

Post by dclowd9901 »

> I’m a sensible moderate on the killbot issue (we’ll probably get them eventually, and I doubt they’ll make things much worse compared to AI “only” having unfettered access to every Internet-enabled computer in the world)

Crikey, this isn't sensible, this is completely misanthropic and nihilistic. How can anyone be ok with a machine unilaterally deciding (outside of the courts or any other check mechanism) to murder someone?

I also take issue with the author's postulation that the Defense Production act could be used here. It's one thing to make sheet metal companies build plane parts, but requiring companies to be put themselves "in the loop" so to speak with regards to actual military strategy or defense puts those companies and their employees at unwilling and extraordinary risk. It's basically enlistment. Plus, it can only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

There's actually another possibility here: Anthropic really doesn't care about being in the loop, and are protesting as theater, but behind the scenes, hammering out a deal with the Pentagon, and they'll help under classified status, and none of us will be the wiser.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#132

Post by epsilonic »

pksebben wrote: post #108
epsilonic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that the current administration functions like a cabal of sex-trafficking mobsters, so none of this is surprising; strong-arming is the norm, not the exception. I expect this to get ugly, and I hope Anthropic has the financial and legal resources to respond accordingly.

functions like is a

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, I cannot edit the comment anymore.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#133

Post by padjo »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #129
padjo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really silly take. The whole reason for separation of powers is so that the executive can be bound by laws created by the legislative as adjudicated by the judiciary. Saying that the people in the executive are above the law undermines this completely.

This doesn't say the executive is above the law, it says you can't prosecute the president for doing his job, just like you can't prosecute judges for their rulings on the bench or members of congress for their votes on the floor.

I don't really see an equivalence between those very specific and limited acts and vast swathe of things covered by "official acts" of a President.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#134

Post by Ajedi32 »

padjo wrote: post #133
Ajedi32 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't say the executive is above the law, it says you can't prosecute the president for doing his job, just like you can't prosecute judges for their rulings on the bench or members of congress for their votes on the floor.

I don't really see an equivalence between those very specific and limited acts and vast swathe of things covered by "official acts" of a President.

The equivalence is that in all three cases those are the official duties of the office.

I would agree that the scope of the president's job description has gotten overly broad over the last century as congress has delegated more and more of its powers to the executive branch, but I don't think a prosecutorial Sword of Damocles is a good solution to that problem. Certainly it's not the constitutionally prescribed one anyway, which is what the court's ruling affirmed.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#135

Post by JetSpiegel »

mattnewton wrote: post #39
oceanplexian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to go look at the laws that were passed in the wake of WWII. The US could trivially nationalize Anthopic if they want to play games with a weapons technology.

This could kill the golden goose. There is a strong argument to be made that Anthropic has a leading model because of the principled people who built it, and I don’t see how they won’t leave, like many did to go to Anthropic from OpenAI and Google. Forcing those people to make weapons to be used against citizens is nothing like the total war in WW2. Why wouldn’t the pentagon just buy from another LLM supplier?

They would leave to what company? Microsoft? OpenAI? Grok? All those are defense contractors as well.

Now, if you said "the Deepseek" guys, that would be different.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#136

Post by padjo »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #134
padjo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see an equivalence between those very specific and limited acts and vast swathe of things covered by "official acts" of a President.

The equivalence is that in all three cases those are the official duties of the office. I would agree that the scope of the president's job description has gotten overly broad over the last century as congress has delegated more and more of its powers to the executive branch, but I don't think a prosecutorial Sword of Damocles is a good solution to that problem. Certainly it's not the constitutionally prescribed one…

"Don't break the law" seems like a pretty low bar to clear for the most powerful person in the country.

Re: The Pentagon threatens Anthropic

#137

Post by Ajedi32 »

padjo wrote: post #136
Ajedi32 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equivalence is that in all three cases those are the official duties of the office. I would agree that the scope of the president's job description has gotten overly broad over the last century as congress has delegated more and more of its powers to the executive branch, but I don't think a prosecutorial Sword of Damocles is a good solution to that problem. Certainly it's not the constitutionally prescribed one…

"Don't break the law" seems like a pretty low bar to clear for the most powerful person in the country.

Given the scope and complexity of our legal system that's actually a very high bar to clear for anyone, and especially for the president who often gets involved in particularly complex legal situations where even a panel of experienced judges can't come to unanimous agreement about what's legal and what isn't.
Post reply on HN