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

31–40 of 491 posts

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

#31

Post by patcon »

aylmao wrote: post #18
moogly wrote: post #4

Looks like losing subscribers actually does work. Definitely gets a damage control response, at least.

I wonder what the mood is like internally too. I can only imagine there some level of employee discontent.

i should hope so. they should quit.

> > what's the term for quitting but not leaving and being destructive

> The most common term is “quiet quitting” when someone disengages but stays employed—but that usually implies minimal effort, not active harm.

> If you specifically mean staying while being disruptive or undermining, better fits include:

> - “Malicious compliance” — following rules in a way that intentionally causes problems

> - “Work-to-rule” — doing only exactly what’s required to slow things down (often collective/labor context)

I imagine malicious compliance is fun when there's an AI intermediary that can be blameless.

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

#32

Post by generic92034 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #11
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...

Exactly. What are we not being told? There is some missing element in the agreement, or the reasoning for the action against Anthropic is unrelated to the agreement.

Punish one, teach a hundred (companies).

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

#34

Post by AlexVranas »

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...

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 they wanted, and OpenAI wasn't going to get anywhere without agreeing to that. They're about as transparent as Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia when he's telling everyone he's playing both sides.

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

#35

Post by roughly »

It feels like Sam's playing chess against an opponent who's playing dodge ball. He's leveraged this situation to get OpenAI in with the DoD in a way that's going to be extremely lucrative for the company and hurt his biggest rival in the process, but I think he's still seeing DoD as Just Another Customer, albeit a big government one. This administration just held a gun to the head of Anthropic and (if the "supply chain risk" designation holds and does as much damage as they're hoping) pulled the trigger, because Anthropic had the gall to tell them no. One thing this administration's shown is you cannot hold lines when you're working with them - at some point the DoD's going to cross his "red lines" and he's going to have to choose whether he's going to risk his entire consumer business and accede to being a private wing of the government like Palantir or if he wants to make a genuine tech giant. There's no third choice here.

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

#36

Post by discardable_dan »

roughly wrote: post #35

It feels like Sam's playing chess against an opponent who's playing dodge ball. He's leveraged this situation to get OpenAI in with the DoD in a way that's going to be extremely lucrative for the company and hurt his biggest rival in the process, but I think he's still seeing DoD as Just Another Customer, albeit a big government one. This administration just held a gun to the head of Anthropic and (if the "supply cha…

It also doesn't matter because Claude 4.6 is so much better at writing code that nobody cares what OpenAI is doing.

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

#37

Post by discardable_dan »

patcon wrote: post #31
aylmao wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the mood is like internally too. I can only imagine there some level of employee discontent.

i should hope so. they should quit. > > what's the term for quitting but not leaving and being destructive > The most common term is “quiet quitting” when someone disengages but stays employed—but that usually implies minimal effort, not active harm. > If you specifically mean staying while being disruptive or undermining, better fits include: > - “Malicious compliance” — following rules in a way that intentionally c…

It is referred to as "simple sabotage": https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...

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

#40

Post by rdiddly »

Us bribing them: fine

Us taking the contract, working for them and enabling them: fine

It being renamed the Dept. of War in the first place: totally fine, we loudly and bootlickingly repeat it

Anthropic being blacklisted: whoa there, we have ethics!

Footnote: any time the winning team tries to speak well of or defend the losing team I always think of this standup routine: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg6wBwhuaVo

Post reply on HN