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

261–270 of 491 posts

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

#261

Post by hellzbellz123 »

gchamonlive wrote: post #222
AlexVranas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is playing games. When Anthropic says they have red lines, they mean "We refuse to let you use our models for these ends, even if it means losing nearly a billion dollars in business." When OpenAI says they have red lines, they mean "We are going to let the DoD do whatever the hell they want, but we will shake our fist at them while they do it." That's why they got the contract. The DoD was clear about what th…

[flagged]

because most americans do not want war, at least id hope, so calling it that seems pretty short sited (maybe until you continually do that 'war' thing), if you want the citizens to look positively on your spending it should probably be for defense not war, again, at least i should hope. im just a dumb "lib" whatever that means

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

#263

Post by glemmaPaul »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same goes for anybody still working at OpenAI past Monday morning 9 am.

People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.

there’s always someone in the world that will defend anything.

Like the people working at OpenAI had no other choice than to pick this cushy job (some have salaries of 500k per year), instead of anything else.

It’s an extreme personal opinion, but; all people working at OpenAI after this debacle are more than happy to make AI for war, because Food and Shelter.

I find your comment fitting this forum, it is where all this enabling started anyways.

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

#264

Post by Nevermark »

lobochrome wrote: post #189
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…

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.

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

Civilians are allowed to put conditions on working for, or supplying, the DoD or any governmental customer.

Tremendous good comes from those that are not willing to facilitate harms, simply because they are legal.

Equating legal with ethical or safe, makes no sense. [0]

[0] All of human history.

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

#265

Post by ruszki »

GaryBluto wrote: post #250
gchamonlive wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

Stoping and questioning why somebody uses DoD or DoW is way more telling than using any of those. Especially that both are perfectly fine, even officially.

A square was renamed in my home city about 20 years ago. We still use the original one usually, even teens know that name. I use a form of the original name of our main stadium which was renamed almost 30 years ago. Heck, some people use names of streets which are not official for almost 40 years now. Btw, the same with departments of the government. Nobody follows how they called at the moment, because nobody really cares. That’s the strange when somebody cares.

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

#267

Post by pjc50 »

Nevermark wrote: post #247
_heimdall wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic demanded defining the redlines. OpenAI and others are hiding behind the veil of what is "lawful use" today. They aren't defining their own redlines and are ignoring the executive branch's authority to change what is "lawful" tomorrow.

Or the increasing impunity all three branches of government are giving themselves with regard to bad faith interpretations of the law, and a lack of government accountability when they color outside the lines. Much of the impunity is now Supreme Court settled law. We see clearly unconstitutional behavior every day, and there is no systematic, timely or effective, push back from any constitutionally enabled oversight.…

However there's one overriding concern which has got American to this point: "anti woke". That is, reinstating the load bearing racism and sexism.

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

#268

Post by Manheim »

This incident shifts LLMs from being only productivity tools to strategic munitions – ready or not. It shouldn't surprise us, but the technical capabilities have reached a point where the 'made in the US' is an active risk for non-US entities given the conflict we see now. Maybe this will trigger the start of an AI arms race where Europe (and others) must secure their own sovereign infrastructure and models. As a European citizen I prefer a balanced world with options rather than a West dominated by US hegemony. Interestingly, if you look at what Anthropic keep insisting on in regards of regulations and ethical use of its models EU should be where Anthropic finds its safe haven. Maybe they should just move their HQ to Brussels, or Barcelona if they prefer a more ‘sunny California’ like vibe.

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

#269

Post by Nevermark »

nickysielicki wrote: post #194
siliconc0w wrote: post #106

The problem with "Any Lawful Use" is that the DoD can essentially make that up. They can have an attorney draft a memo and put it in a drawer. The memo can say pretty much anything is legal - there is no judicial or external review outside the executive. If they are caught doing $illegal_thing, they then just need to point the memo. And we've seen this happen numerous times.

Did you guys really think that the jurisprudential issues that became endemic after 9/11 suddenly disappeared because we discovered LLMs? Let’s put pressure on our government to fix the FISA issues. Let’s reign in the executive branch. But let’s do it through voting. Let’s not give up on our system of government because we have new shiny technology. You were naive if you thought developing new technologies was the so…

> But let’s do it through voting.

You don't get a successful vote without a tremendous amount of coordination and activism preceding it.

Laws that constrain government from bad things are very difficult things to get the government to pass.

In the meantime, using completely legal civil power to push back on legally allowed harms seems beyond sensible.

But if you just vote and it works without all that, please let us know how you did it!

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN