Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

211–220 of 491 posts

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

#211
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…

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-... AI has been killing humans via algorithm for over 20 years. I mean, if a computer program builds the kill lists and then a human operates the drone, I would argue the computer is what made the kill decision

Ai in general is different not in degree but in kind to the current crop of language models.

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

#212
Yet it just so happens OAI donated millions[0] to the trump admin in the past. And they were immediately there to pick up the slack.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this sounds like classic quid pro quo. I would not be surprised if the ousting of anthropic was in part caused by these donations.

[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/technology/openai-sam-alt...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump...

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He has power over DoD and his boss has power over the whole federal government.

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The models we have now will not do it, Except that they will, if you trick them which is trivial.

I have to call BS here. They can be coerced to do certain things but I'd like to see you or anyone prove that you can "trick" any of these models into building software that can be used autonomously kill humans. I'm pretty certain you couldn't even get it to build a design document for such software. When there is proof of your claim, I'll eat my words. Until then, this is just lazy nonsense

Couldn’t you just pretend the kill decisions are for a video game?

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

#215
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…

I have never used AI to generate an answer for HN but just this once I thought it would be good to hit ChatGPT specifically and ask it for 'a list of times Sam Altman has gone against his word.' Here was its response:

Shift from Nonprofit Mission to For-Profit Orientation – OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit with a charter focused on “benefit to humanity,” but under Altman it created a capped-profit subsidiary, accepted large investments (e.g., from Microsoft), and critics (including Elon Musk in a 2024 lawsuit) argue this departed from that original mission. A federal judge allowed Musk’s claim that Altman and OpenAI broke promises about nonprofit governance to proceed to trial.

Nonprofit Control Reorganization Drama (2023) – In November 2023, the original nonprofit board cited a lack of transparency and confidence in Altman’s candor as a reason for firing him. He was reinstated days later after investor and employee pressure, highlighting internal conflict over governance and communication.

Dust-Up Over Military Usage Policies – OpenAI initially had explicit public policies restricting AI use in “military and warfare” contexts, but those clauses were reportedly removed quietly in 2024, allowing the company to pursue Department of Defense contracts — a turnaround from earlier language that appeared to preclude such use.

Statements on Pentagon Deal vs. Prior Positioning – In early 2026, Altman publicly said OpenAI shared safety “red lines” (e.g., prohibiting mass surveillance and autonomous weapons) similar to some competitors, but hours later OpenAI signed a deal to deploy its models on classified military networks, leading critics to argue this contradicts earlier positioning on limits for military use.

Regulation Stance Shifts in Congressional Testimony – Altman has advocated for strong regulation of AI in some public settings but in later congressional hearings opposed specific regulatory requirements (like mandatory pre-deployment vetting), aligning more with industry concerns about overregulation — a shift in tone compared with earlier support of regulatory frameworks.

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

#216

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…

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.

No, I want the government to prove that they understand the limitations of software that they're purchasing to use to kill people, and I want AI companies to be clear about what they think those limitations are. Just because it would be legal to use software for something doesn't mean it's capable of doing it safely, and there's absolutely no reason that the government is in a better position to judge that than the people who make it and literally have a financial incentive to lie about it. If they're that confident it wouldn't be safe to use it for that, maybe it's a good idea to consider that.

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

#218

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…

That seems exactly what it should be. The United States military should be able to do what the law allows. If we don't think they should be allowed to do something, we should pass laws. Not rely on the goodness of Sam Altman.

So don’t stand up for ethics and safety where there isn’t a law for it? Backwards day?

Nobody is prosecuting the DoD with non-laws here. But one company is using their legal right to refuse to facilitate great harms.

> Not rely on the goodness of Sam Altman.

(Who said anything about that? Where did that come from?)

Nobody wants to rely on Altman!

For anything. But it would be better if he would stand up for safety, instead of undermining it.

Your logic is backwards.

If we don’t want to rely entirely on a centralized government alone, increasingly interested in giving its leaders unfettered power, with all three branches increasingly willing to bend our laws and give itself impunity, then a widespread civilian culture of upholding safety by many and all actors is a necessity.

The need for the latter is always a necessity. But the risks of power consolidation, with the help of AI, are rising.

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

#219

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 think the problem is exactly the opposite. The federal government has the total combined power and scale that it does because we are a massive and complex modern nation. That's inevitable. The problem that we are seeing is that the reigns to that power can be held by too few people it turns out. The checks and balances have ceased to exist. No one is held accountable and people are allowed to be above the law.

> The federal government has the total combined power and scale that it does because we are a massive and complex modern nation. That's inevitable.

Perhaps massive and complex (I'd say complicated) nation-states inevitably create industrial complexes, but it's certainly not inevitable that nation-states grow so large (or even exist) in 2026.

The idea that we still need soverign-esque entites across entire continents, when we can now communicate and coordinate instantly across them, and use cameras to documents truth all around us at all times, is just downright silly.

We can reduce states to the size that you can walk across in a day or two, and everybody will be much happier and healthier.

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

#220

The president is a supply chain risk.

The US population is a supply chain risk. Knowing what Trump did, prior to 2024, on the average, 7/10 people either voted or didn't vote in the 2024 election. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. All of this could have been avoided if all of the people who didn't vote had a decent moral compass and no matter how much they disagreed with Kamala, they could have voted for her because she didn't try to overthrow the gover…

I would expand that to the mainstream media and social media are the real supply chain risks. Majority of the population only know what’s fed to them and when their tv channel of choice and algorithm decides what they see - that’s a huge problem for getting info out. Im not even sure how we can fix it, really.
Post reply on HN