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

171–180 of 319 posts

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#171

Post by [deleted] »

basket_horse wrote: post #164
ssl-3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I produce and sell widgets in my widget shop, then nobody but me gets to decide how I make those widgets. The government can come into my shop and order sixty thousand widgets built exactly the way they say they want them built, and it may be something that doesn't run afoul of any laws at all. But that doesn't mean that I am required or compelled to build widgets their way -- or at all. I'm free to tell them to f…

And that’s what’s happening here. The government is telling Anthropic to fuck off and they are finding someone else

[deleted]

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#172

Post by softwaredoug »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #161
softwaredoug wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It opens the door for Democratic administrations to do the same to vendors for their own political reasons. That’s ultimately why Ted Cruz spoke out about the Kimmel cancelation. It doesn’t take long until those powers are turned against you.

I love when a Republican does something awful the response is "but what about if Democrats do that same awful thing to us!" as opposed to discussing and admitting that the Republicans did something awful.

The only way you convince Republicans it’s awful is by reminding Republicans power can be abused in both directions.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#174

Post by xpe »

pmarreck wrote: post #143
cakealert wrote: post #63

[flagged]

Congratulations, you are clearly the smartest person on this forum, and I don’t mean that facetiously. The number of naïve comments here is absolutely astounding. It would be like a spouse proposing restrictions and terms of their access to your phone contingent on you marrying them. Assuming guilt until proven innocent

> It would be like a spouse proposing restrictions and terms of their access to your phone contingent on you marrying them.

It is easy to cherry pick one metaphor. We owe it to ourselves to think better than that.

What happens when you analyze this overall situation in all of its richness from multiple points of view and then seek synthesis? Speaking for myself, I would want to know your (1) probabilistic priors: the Bayesian equivalent of "disclosing your biases"; (2) supporting information; (3) conflicting information: I want to know that you aren't just ignoring it; (4) various theories/models you considered; (5) overall probabilistic take. All in all, I'm uninterested in analysis disconnected from the historical particulars.

Few people have the skillset and time to dig in properly. I suggest starting with "A Tale of Three Contracts" by Zvi Mowshowitz [1] In my experience, you would be hard-pressed to find anything around AI of this quality in the usual mainstream publications.

[1] https://thezvi.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-three-contracts

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#175

Post by cedws »

estearum wrote: post #170
cedws wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get too attached. We're witnessing capitalism in its most ruthless form. Any of these companies will discard their principles the moment it becomes existential.

We are quite literally witnessing someone taking a massive hit for not discarding their principles. Evergreen dril: "The wise man bowed his head and said 'there's no difference between good things and bad things you imbecile'"

What's your source for this "massive hit"? All I've seen is a massive PR upside, despite what I said above.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#176

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #161
softwaredoug wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It opens the door for Democratic administrations to do the same to vendors for their own political reasons. That’s ultimately why Ted Cruz spoke out about the Kimmel cancelation. It doesn’t take long until those powers are turned against you.

I love when a Republican does something awful the response is "but what about if Democrats do that same awful thing to us!" as opposed to discussing and admitting that the Republicans did something awful.

I think you're misinterpreting the discussion here. Democrats are precommitting that they are going to do the same awful thing; when the time comes, I will be contacting my legislators demanding that they do to OpenAI or SpaceX whatever is done to Anthropic now. It's outrageous that Sam Altman would step in to try and benefit from the political persecution of his main competitor and we must ensure that he regrets this.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#177

Post by netinstructions »

This designation is usually reserved for foreign adversaries/companies, and so this is crazy to apply it to US company over a sudden contract dispute... that was previously agreed upon by all parties.

This should make any US company nervous about entering into an agreement with the government. Or any US company that already has a contract with the government. If they one day decide they don't like that contract, they can designate you a supply chain risk.

Not 1) rip up the existing contract and cease the agreement or 2) continue (but not renew) the existing contract or 3) renegotiate terms upon renewal but instead a full on ban of doing any business with an entire industry/sector.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#178

Post by kevinwang »

pmarreck wrote: post #143
cakealert wrote: post #63

[flagged]

Congratulations, you are clearly the smartest person on this forum, and I don’t mean that facetiously. The number of naïve comments here is absolutely astounding. It would be like a spouse proposing restrictions and terms of their access to your phone contingent on you marrying them. Assuming guilt until proven innocent

Even in your analogy, it's appropriate to reject the terms of marriage and not wed this person. But it's unprecedented to also vindictively ruin their life (e.g. by unilaterally putting them in jail)

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#180

Post by jdndbdjsj »

Waterluvian wrote: post #113

It was really easy to close out my ChatGPT account and switch to Claude. I was really only there out of inertia. I don’t do anything beyond occasional free tier stuff like rubber ducking but so far Claude is so much better.

I prefer the claude code CLI interface for everything anyway. It is actually more convenient. Memory is local files, type one word to use rather than navigate.
Post reply on HN