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

Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 319 posts

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#151

Post by yoyohello13 »

ok_dad wrote: post #138
cakealert wrote: post #63

[flagged]

The legal definition of supply chain risk: > “Supply chain risk” means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system (see 10 U.S.C. 3252).…

They think anyone who isn't a republican is an adversary of the USA.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#152

Post by nostrademons »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #82

Writing out a thought I had, someone please critique my reasoning here... What if Anthropic just shrugged, dissolved the company and open-sourced all of the Opus weights? Could this harm OpenAI and advance AI in a reasonable way? Look I know it's an insane idea. I'm just curious what the most unhinged response to this might be.

I kinda wonder if this is how we got DeepSeek. It was developed by a Chinese hedge fund. Entirely possible their business model was to take out large leveraged puts against the major U.S. AI vendors; shit on their business models with an entirely open-source model; and profit. The stock market certainly dropped in a massive way when DeepSeek was released, so if they traded against NVDA/GOOG/META et al, they profited in a big way.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#154

Post by xpe »

cakealert wrote: post #63

[flagged]

> There are game theoretic reasons why a military should never accept any external restrictions on an asset.

1. Last week I made a case for why DoD, if rational, would accept limited use under a consequentialist decision theory frame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47190039

2. One what basis is it rational to give the current administration (the leadership) the benefit of the doubt w.r.t. having a sincere drive towards advancing the national security of the United States? The evidence highly points in the other direction: towards corruption, political ends, and narcissistic whims.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#155

Post by m_ke »

hypeatei wrote: post #133
m_ke wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame the voters, they didn't get to pick her and did not run her campaign.

Oh no, I will. They're absolutely culpable.

I think the DNC and the media might need to get some of that blame for being empty vessels for corporate interests that allowed this conman to get elected twice

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#156

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

cakealert wrote: post #63

[flagged]

Because last time I checked, private companies that voluntarily offer a service to the government on contract terms are free to put whatever restrictions they want into their contract, and the government is free to not sign it if they don't like it?

Or is, say, FedEx now a supply chain risk too, if they happened to offer parcel delivery services for the DoD and put in a clause excluding delivery to active war zones?

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#157

Post by eecc »

oompydoompy74 wrote: post #16

Exported all my chats and deleted my ChatGPT account yesterday. The current administration not liking you is the strongest signal I could possibly have to go all in on a particular company.

Asked for an export but still haven’t received the mail with the download link

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#158

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

parliament32 wrote: post #149

Is there a link to the actual order anywhere? For us FedRAMP folks, the exact order contents actually matter, rather than a journalistic regurgitation. I was hoping one of the links in the article pointed to a source, but they're all just links back to other WSJ pages.

It sounds like they still have not issued any sort of actual order. The "formal label" described in the article is that they sent a communication directly to Anthropic saying they're a supply chain risk.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#159

Post by draw_down »

Chance-Device wrote: post #146

Anthropic should never have gotten into bed with the military or intelligence services to begin with. They wanted to make a deal with the devil and dictate the terms, that is the problem. If they had stayed out this wouldn’t be happening. Yes, someone else will probably step in and do all the evil you have just refused to do, but that isn’t a reason to instead decide to do it personally. Note that I give them a lot o…

[dead]

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#160

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

10xDev wrote: post #124
100xLLM wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It is duplicating... @dang something needs to be done about this. Edit: it even created an account based on my username. wtf...

@dang is not a tag that notifies dang. You must email HN.
Post reply on HN