Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 392 posts

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#241

Post by clutter55561 »

lich_king wrote: post #180
lebovic wrote: post #94

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about Anthropic's first response and the RSP update [1][2]. I think many people on HN have a cynical reaction to Anthropic's actions due to of their own lived experiences with tech companies. Sometimes, that holds: my part of the company looked like Meta or Stripe, and it's hard not to regress to the mean as you scale. But not every patt…

My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the co…

HN is pretty polarised about this - they are either “the good guys” or “doing it for positive marketing”.

I’m on the camp “the world is so fucked up, take the good when you can find it”.

Beggars can’t be choosers when it comes to taking a stand against dictatorships.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#242

Post by stouset »

lebovic wrote: post #94

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about Anthropic's first response and the RSP update [1][2]. I think many people on HN have a cynical reaction to Anthropic's actions due to of their own lived experiences with tech companies. Sometimes, that holds: my part of the company looked like Meta or Stripe, and it's hard not to regress to the mean as you scale. But not every patt…

> I think the decision was made because the people making this decision at Anthropic are well-intentioned, driven by values, and motivated by trying to make the transition to powerful AI to go well.

The entire problem is that this lasts as long as those people are in charge. Every incentive is aligned with eventually replacing them with people who don’t share those values, or eventually Anthropic will be out-competed by people who have no hesitation to put profit before principle.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#243

Post by Intermernet »

What's stopping the government from using the usual nasty tricks the world has known about for decades?

DPA? All Writs Act?

Force them to comply and then prevent them talking about it with NSLs?

I appreciate that Anthropic may be the least bad of a bunch of really bad actors here, but this has played out before in the US, and the burden of trust is, and should be, really high. I believe that Anthropic don't want to remove the "safety barriers" on their tech being used for domestic surveillance and military operations, but that implies they're ok with those use-cases so long as the "safety barriers" are still up. Not really the best look, IMHO.

So what happens when we all get rosy eyed about Anthropic (the only slightly evil company) winning a battle against the purely evil government, and then the gov use the various instruments at their disposal to just force anthropic to do what they want, and then force them to never disclose it?

Did the world learn nothing from Snowden?

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#244

Post by politician »

jart wrote: post #225
kyle-rb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a loyalty test then you'd think the DoD would be willing to let them "fail" and simply drop the contract, but instead they're threatening to label Anthropic a supply chain risk. If we're going by Occam's razor: it's Friday so Pete probably started drinking ~10:30-11am.

They're not threatening to do that. They just did. Read the tweet linked in the article. > In conjunction with the President's directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic's technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military…

"This has never happened before." US could compel Anthropic to act; simply not doing business with them is restraint, not escalation.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#245

Post by abustamam »

clutter55561 wrote: post #241
lich_king wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the co…

HN is pretty polarised about this - they are either “the good guys” or “doing it for positive marketing”. I’m on the camp “the world is so fucked up, take the good when you can find it”. Beggars can’t be choosers when it comes to taking a stand against dictatorships.

Yeah, the alternative is be OK with their product being used for surveillance.

Not sure why it's controversial that they said no, regardless of the reasoning. Yeah there's a lot of marketing speak and things to cover their asses. Let's call them out on that later. Right now let's applaud them for doing the right thing.

FWIW I do not think they are the "good guys" (if I had a dollar for every company that had a policy of not being evil...). But they are certainly not siding with the bad guys here.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#246

Post by bawolff »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #153
bawolff wrote: post #137

I'm of the opinion that anthropic's "moral" stances are bullshit, not particularly coherent when you dig deep and more about branding. If so, this is grade A marketing. They want to present themselves as moral. What better endorsement than by being rejected by the US military under Trump? You get the people who hate trump and the people who hate the military in one swoop. At the same time its kind of a non story. Anr…

> What's the problem? Think. The problem is that being branded a "supply chain risk" prohibits vast chunks of the US corporate landscape from doing business with Anthropic. The problem is that the government is attempting to destroy a company rather than simply terminate their contract.

Isn't it a literal supply chain risk, though?

They want their products to not be used for some purposes. That's fine, that is their right. But that doesn't just stop at direct purchases. If the US buys from a defense contractor who bought from abthropic, that really isn't that different from buying direct. The moral hazard is still there and the risk that anthropic will try to prevent their product from being used in that fashion is still there.

I think anthropic wants their cake and to eat it too. You can't take a principled stand against something and then be shocked the thing you are taking a principled stand against might think you are a risk.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#247

Post by politician »

jeremyjh wrote: post #239
politician wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. These aren't unreasonable demands and the government has tools to compel tech companies to support the country regardless of any "collective action" shenanigans -- ask your AI to tell you about the Defense Production Act and the history of its use.

The demands are not only unreasonable they are in violation of the contract the DoD signed. Do you really think LLMs should be used in autonomous weapons systems? Do you think they government should use them in mass domestic surveillance? That is reasonable?

Are you an American? Do you understand that your safe easy life depends on a mostly autonomous nuclear deterrence capability maintained by the military you oppose? Deeply think about why you still have right to free speech, and what it takes to sustain those rights.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#248

Post by tokyobreakfast »

yesimahuman wrote: post #202
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new." The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.

It is so clearly being used to a much greater and more deliberate degree during this administration. Pretending otherwise is foolish

It really isn't—it's all perception. Hegseth has a much more outgoing and public persona so it's more visible.

Heck, can you even name the last 5 Secretaries that preceded him? I can't.

The last one that was this widely known was probably Rumsfeld (Bush II) or Robert Gates during Obama I (bin Laden raid).

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#250

Post by mech422 »

ajam1507 wrote: post #227
lich_king wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck. So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the co…

> However, in this instance, it does seem that Anthropic is walking away from money. The supply chain risk designation will be overturned in court, and the financial fallout from losing the government contracts will pale in comparison to the goodwill from consumers. Not to mention that giving in would mean they lose lots of their employees who would refuse to work under those terms. In this case, the principles are l…

The consumer goodwill is working then - it pushed me to upgrade my plan on march 1st... (do they bill on rolling 30 day cycle ? or calendar-month to calendar-month?)
Post reply on HN