Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not the defense contracts to Anthropic that hurt. It’s not being able to do business with anyone who does business with the DOD that hurts.
[flagged]
Surveil not protect
I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
231–240 of 1001 posts
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#232> Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. I’m sure the lawyers just got paged, but does this mean the hyperscalers (AWS, GCP) can’t resell Claude anymore to US companies that aren’t doing business with the DoD? That’s rough.
Wait, what about Bun?
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#233Good. 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…
> Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA. Anthropic made it quite clear they are cool with spying in general, just not domestic spying on Americans, and their "no killbots" pledge was asterisked with "because we don't believe the technology is reliable enough for those stakes yet". The implication being that they absolutely would do killbots once t…
I wouldn't say it's clear. People keep pointing to the wording used in the statement to say it, but I wonder if it has to do with constitutionally; domestic surveillance of people in the US without a warrant is against the constitution, and surveillance of non-citizens outside the U.S is not. Can they even be compelled by the executive branch to do an action that may be unconstitutional?
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#234This is going to have two unintended consequences. One, it’s going to fuck with the AI fundraising market. That includes for IPO. If Trump can do this to Anthropic, a Dem President will do it to xAI. We have no idea where the contagion stops. Two, Anthropic will win in the long run. In corporate America. Overseas. And with consumers. And, I suspect, with investors.
> In corporate America A lot of corporate America contracts for the military in some capacity (it's a giant piggy bank and if you jump through a few hoops you get to siphon money out of it, so of course they do) and assuming this Tweet is accurate (Jesus, what a world) this will also affect them. IDK maybe they have corporate structures that avoid letting this kind of thing mess too badly with the parts of their comp…
What percentage of their revenue comes from the government?
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#235Given that Anthropic is clearly risking their entire business just to stand up for what they believe is right, which appears to be what everyone here agrees with, is everyone who is supporting them here planning to also start using Anthropic and switch away from other vendors until they follow suit? Or are folks planning to just use whatever regardless? Edit: I should perhaps clarify I'm more interested in paid users…
I'm switching.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#236I can't wait to read the transcript of the AUSA in front of a federal judge trying to explain threatening to declare a company a supply chain risk if the company doesn't supply things to the government.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#237This could kill Anthropic.
The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude cannot survive on $200/mo individual powerusers. The math just doesn’t math.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Then you go to another supplier. But any company with proper counsel will tell them the same thing: don't break the law, which is exactly what they're trying to coerce Anthropic into doing. DoD requests do not supersede the law.
What is this "law" you speak of?
I understand 'goals' and 'means to an end', but this concept of "law" evades me.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#239So 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]
> They are a "supply chain risk" if they can willy-nilly break their contract with US govt and enforce arbitrary rules to service.
It is the US govt that seeks to break their contract with Anthropic.
The contract they signed had the safeguards, so they were mutually agreed upon. These safeguards against fully autonomous killbots and AI spying of US citizens was known before signing.
This conflict now is because the US govt regrets what they agreed to in the contract.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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..."
If I had to bet, there will be some kind of face-saving climbdown by the end of next week. But all I can do right now is read the words on the page.