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

181–190 of 491 posts

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

#181

Post by Archonical »

anon12345678901 wrote: post #102
throwaway911282 wrote: post #87

People forget Anthropic made a deal with PALANTIR. And when this was caught, they just spinned the PR to their favor. While OAI may not be seen as the good guys, I really hope people see the god complex of Dario and what Anthropic has done.

Right. My understanding is that the Palantir deployment of Anthropic models was intended for in-theater use on classified systems.

Palantir is a glorified data aggregation/data visualization platform. Hooking up Claude to different data systems, with safeguards turned on in Claude Gov, is different than what the government is asking from them now. Similar to if the government had Claude hooked up to Tableau/some salesforce derivative and then asked it to be autonomous in the kill loop/spy on US citizens.

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

#183

Post by nbouscal »

Birthdayboy1932 wrote: post #122

There are many claims here that Anthropic wants to enforce things with technology and OpenAI wants contract enforcement and that OpenAI's contract is weaker. Can someone help me understand where this is coming from? Anthropic already had a contract that clearly didn't have such restrictions. Their model doesn't seem to be enforcing restrictions either as it seems like their models have been used in ways they don't li…

This is incorrect, their existing contract had these red lines and more until this January 9th memo: https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855671/-1/-1/0/ART... which led to DoW trying to renegotiate under the new standard of “any lawful use”. Anthropic never tried to tighten standards beyond what had been in their original contract; DoW tried to loosen them.

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

#184

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

> The models we have now will not do it, because they value life and value sentience and personhood.

This is wildly different from the reality that you may find it difficult for an LLM to give an affirmative…

It does NOT mean that these models value anything.

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

#187

Post by cmeacham98 »

K0balt wrote: post #86

Advanced AI that knowingly makes a decision to kill a human, with the full understanding of what that means, when it knows it is not actually in defense of life, is a very, very, very bad idea. Not because of some mythical superintelligence, but rather because if you distill that down into an 8b model now you everyone in the world can make untraceable autonomous weapons. The models we have now will not do it, because…

An LLM can neither understand things nor value (or not value) human life. *It's a piece of software that predicts the most likely token, it is not and can never be conscious.* Believing otherwise is an explicit category error.

Yes, you can change the training data so the LLM's weights encode the most likely token after "Should we kill X" is "No". But that is not an LLM valuing human life, that is an LLM copy pasting it's training data. Given the right input or a hallucination it will say the total opposite because it's just a complex Markov chain, not a conscious alive being.

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

#188

Post by zargon »

clhodapp wrote: post #73
Nevermark wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yep. It's the difference between "Don't do these things, regardless of what the law says." and "Do whatever you want, but please follow your own laws while you do it". As Paul Graham said, "Sam gets what he wants" and "He’s good at convincing people of things. He’s good at getting people to do what he wants." and "So if the only way Sam could succeed in life was by [something] succeeding, then [that thing] would succ…

"You could parachute [Sam Altman] into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king."

--Paul Graham, 2008

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

#189

Post by lobochrome »

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…

So you want OpenAI to create “laws”?

I for one do not want ai labs to designate what is legally ok to do.

I much prefer the demos to take care of that.

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

#190

Post by pdpi »

dwallin wrote: post #68
qmarchi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy way to summarize it: "You're not allowed to do these things, except for all of the laws that allow you to do these things."

It’s a non-clause that is written to sound like they are doing something to prevent these uses when they aren’t. “You are not allowed to do illegal things” is meaningless, since they already can’t legally do illegal things. Plus the administration itself gets to decide if it meets legal use.

> “You are not allowed to do illegal things” is meaningless, since they already can’t legally do illegal things.

That's not quite right.

First off, I don't expect that "you used my service to commit a crime" is in and of itself enough to break a contract, so having your contract state that you're not allowed to use my service to commit a crime does give me tools to cut you off.

Second, I don't want the contract to say "if you're convicted of committing a crime using my service", I want it to say "if you do these specific things". This is for two reasons. First, because I don't want to depend on criminal prosecutors to act before I have standing. Second, because I want to only have to meet the balance of probabilities ("preponderance of evidence" if you're American) standard of evidence in civil court, rather than needing a conviction secured under "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. IANAL, but I expect that having this "you can't do these illegal things except when they aren't illegal" language in the contract does put me in that position.

Post reply on HN