Can we get a list of companies with this designation so I can migrate my subscriptions to them?
I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how you get that reading. Anthropic is clearly allowed to sell Claude to companies not doing business with the US Military. If anything that's more likely to be non-US companies.
Because Anthropic sells Claude through other companies that in turn do business both with Anthropic and the government. These intermediaries, large cloud companies, can't offer Claude anymore if they want to keep the government as a customer.
The government is faaaaaaaaaaaar too invested in Azure and AWS for Microsoft or Amazon to give even half a shit. The DOD has no where else to go and the companies know it. They'll sit on their hands until the legal maneuvers play out, which will take longer than this administration will be in office.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#203Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see a contradiction here. If control is out of the hands of decision makers, that’s a supply chain risk . Were it not for that, the service is seen as critical to national security. I dunno, safeguard seems like a weasel word here. It’s just reserving control to one party over another. It’s understandable why the DoD(W) wouldn’t like that.
I'm pretty sure you (and others) are trying to apply some kind of guess at the "supply chain risk" designation, but it means something specific. Here's the term defined in an official context: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-... .
That link is broken for me but I assume you meant to link to [0]. I think if there is a “safeguard” in a system, that definitely fits the bill of a supply chain risk. The only vague term here is “adversary”.
[0]: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-....
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#205Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA. In fact, as a patriotic American veteran, I'd be ok with Anthropic moving to Europe. It might be better for Claude and AGI, which are overriding issues for me. Rutger Bregman @rcbregman This is a huge opportunity for Europe. Welcome Anthropic with open arms. Roll out the red carpet. Visa for all employees. Eu…
AGI? My guy, it's a text predictor slot machine. Very useful tool but will never be AGI.
Said the biological text predictor…
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#206Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA. In fact, as a patriotic American veteran, I'd be ok with Anthropic moving to Europe. It might be better for Claude and AGI, which are overriding issues for me. Rutger Bregman @rcbregman This is a huge opportunity for Europe. Welcome Anthropic with open arms. Roll out the red carpet. Visa for all employees. Eu…
Europe doesn’t give a shit about another American company and their employees trying to dominate their markets and import their workaholic American culture. They will tell Anthropic to go home.
This is pretty disconnected to how EU has been behaving towards both startups and AI.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#207So they are such a risk to national security that no contractor that works with the federal government may use them, but they're going to keep using them for six more months? So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months?
[flagged]
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
(edit: I'm most likely wrong) You got it backwards, can't use claude if you ARE doing business with DoD. Presumably AWS/GCP don't care, its up to the end customer to comply. Not like GCP KYC asks if you work with DoD.
I don't think he got it backwards, at least if Hegseth's statement is accurate. AWS, GCP, etc. all do business with DoD. If they, as DoD contractors, are no longer allowed to do business with Anthropic, then presumably they have to stop re-selling or hosting Anthropic's models to anyone.
>> at least if Hegseth's statement is accurate
Oh you tender babes, trying to logic the meaning of what the lieutenant of the biggest crime syndicate in the world means with his words, as if this was a well thought-out strategy... it's a shakedown; it would make more sense to ask "at least if Hegseth is sober..."
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#209Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA. In fact, as a patriotic American veteran, I'd be ok with Anthropic moving to Europe. It might be better for Claude and AGI, which are overriding issues for me. Rutger Bregman @rcbregman This is a huge opportunity for Europe. Welcome Anthropic with open arms. Roll out the red carpet. Visa for all employees. Eu…
AGI? My guy, it's a text predictor slot machine. Very useful tool but will never be AGI.
"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895"
I'm sure this doesn't apply to you since you're not Lord Kelvin. On the other hand, people like Peter Norvig state in a popular AI textbook that, for example, they don't know why similar concepts appear close by in the vector space, so maybe you just know something other people don't.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure you (and others) are trying to apply some kind of guess at the "supply chain risk" designation, but it means something specific. Here's the term defined in an official context: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-... .
That link is broken for me but I assume you meant to link to [0]. I think if there is a “safeguard” in a system, that definitely fits the bill of a supply chain risk. The only vague term here is “adversary”. [0]: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-... .
Ugh, sorry for the broken link, I even pasted the same string into a new tab to make sure it worked because I thought the period at the end looked weird, and it was fine. Dunno how it got mangled.
[EDIT] Oh man, yours is like that too? WTF.
[EDIT2] If I follow your link, hit the 404 page, then add a period at the end of the URL, it does load. God that's strange.