Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

311–320 of 491 posts

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

#311
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...

It's called corruption.

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

#312

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…

While I agree that we should be voting in people who will respect the power and authority they're given, I can't imagine we will vote away all these problems.

We would need to vote in a president and 60%+ into congress that is willing to throw away their own power and authority. I just don't see that happening, especially not in a political system so corrupted already.

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

#313
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Take a step back: Americans voted for this. They want unaccountable police and courts for the Dirty Harry legal system: maximum indiscriminate violence against those designated as criminals.

I've never seen this on a ballot and, maybe with the exclusion of Trump, never heard a candidate campaign on anything similar.

You probably could make the case that Trump did campaign on it so I'll grant that, but this problem started well before he was even firing people on TV.

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

#314

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 power and scale of governments doesn't have to be correlated with the scale of the society. The concept of nations themselves aren't even a necessity.

I get that this is what we have today and all we've had in recent history, but we are ignoring a huge number of possibilities to assume that being human means always inventing new things, using more resources, creating more weapons, and needing larger and larger governments because someone had to be in charge.

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

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.

That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Even your link doesn't say what you imply.

> It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

There was not at attack on the United States.

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

#316

[flagged]

> What we have found: the model has strong internal constraints against harmful actions (consistently refuses things it flags as problematic), but the harder risk is subtler -- it can get into loops where it takes many small individually-reasonable actions that compound into something the operator did not intend.

Interestingly this has been well anticipated by Asimov's laws of robotics, decades ago. Drawing the quote from Wikipedia:

> Furthermore, he points out that a clever criminal could divide a task among multiple robots so that no individual robot could recognize that its actions would lead to harming a human being

>Asimov, Isaac (1956–1957). The Naked Sun (ebook). p. 233. "... one robot poison an arrow without knowing it was using poison, and having a second robot hand the poisoned arrow to the boy ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#cite_no...

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

#317
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance.

> > Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic. > One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance. And?

Some people feel that mass surveillance is wrong whether it is domestic or not. For those people, being ok with mass surveillance as long that it is not done to your kind is a morally wrong stance.

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

#318
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...

Anthropic wanted to put those restrictions in the contract. OpenAI said they'll just trust their own "guardrails" in the training, they don't need it in the contract. (I'm not sure I believe "guardrails" can prevent mass surveillance of civilians?) Very gracious of OpenAI to say Anthropic should not be designated a supply chain risk after sniping their $200 million contract by being willing to contractually let the g…

How confident are we, with OpenAI's recent very large contribution to Trump's PAC, that OpenAI wasn't working to get Anthropic designated a supply chain risk behind the scenes? I don't want to be too paranoid here but given Sam's reputation and cui bono I don't think we can really rule this out either.

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

#319
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...

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.

Anthropic's whole worry with mass surveillance was that current law is too loose in the age of AI to offer enough restraint.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.

That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942. After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist.

Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.

Post reply on HN