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

141–150 of 491 posts

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

#141

Post by janalsncm »

mlyle wrote: post #76
isodev wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border - none of them have a problem being unethical internationally (all the red lines talk is about what they don’t want to do in the us)

? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally. Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. (But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus).

I think the person you are replying to takes issue with the thing which you have simply asserted.

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

#142

Post by scottyah »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same goes for anybody still working at OpenAI past Monday morning 9 am.

People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.

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.

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

#143

Post by janalsncm »

kgdiem wrote: post #113

Genuine question, how could Claude have been used for the military action in Venezuela and how could ChatGPT be used for autonomous weapons? Are they arguing about staffers being able to use an LLM to write an email or translate from Arabic to English? There are far more boring, faster, commodified “AI” systems that I can see as being helpful in autonomous weapons or military operations like image recognition and tra…

You can’t embed Claude in a drone. You could tell Claude code to write a training harness to build an autonomous targeting model which you could embed in a drone.

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

#144

Post by scottyah »

jwpapi wrote: post #91

No wonder they think they’re close to AGI when they think we are that stupid. > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control, nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by a human decisionmaker under the same authorities. This whole sentence does do absolutely nothing its st…

Altman must have read a lot of Kissinger. If your brain scans the text quickly it almost seems like it's Anthropic's red line, except the second half completely negates it. Completely untrustworthy IMO, this is a direct, malicious intent to misdirect.

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

#145

Post by scottyah »

rectang wrote: post #120
siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

You are right that this happens in practice (e.g. John Yoo torture memo). However, it is not how the system was intended to function, nor how it ought to function. I don’t want to lose sight of that.

We shouldn't be stacking up so many incentives for it to happen though.

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

#146

Post by scottyah »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #127
_heimdall wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and its easy to hide behind things like the Patriot Act if challenged legally. Its interesting to see the parties flip in real time. The Democrats seem to be realizing why a small federal government is so important, a fact that for quite a few years their were on the other side of.

I don’t see the connection to a small federal government here. Mind connecting the dots?

The government is forcing a company to change their terms of service, and "threatening" to have them effectively shut down. I say threat, because the SecWar issued an illegal command that no employees, or contractors of the federal could use any Anthropic product at all. He does not have that power.

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

#147

Post by throwaway314155 »

Can someone please explain plainly what this means and what happened, and why it is the source of so much controversy?

I'm not being insincere - I am genuinely confused and would benefit greatly from a (hopefully unbiased) recollection of what this is all about.

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

#148

Post by scottyah »

ookblah wrote: post #132

"i told everyone that our boss shouldn't punish our colleague for X while i somehow made a deal with our boss for basically X". how did this get by without someone thinking about how absolutely stupid the optics look. i guess we are in the times where you can literally just say whatever you want and it just becomes truth, just give it time.

hah, they basically stole a coworkers promotion, then told that person that they put in a good word with the boss about them. So silly, I do wonder who actually interprets it as Sam seems to hope people do.

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

#149

Post by avaer »

siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

This is all happening in secret. That don't need any memo.

In the unlikely case anyone finds out, those acting in the interests of the administration will have "absolute immunity", as they are "great American Patriots".

That's what "all lawful use" means.

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

#150

Post by fnordpiglet »

Nevermark wrote: post #30
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...

> more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must underg…

Each of those clauses have a DoD policy carve out as an exception which says basically they can do whatever they want if they want to do it, but won’t be able to if they don’t want to do it.
Post reply on HN