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

Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–319 of 319 posts

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#311

Post by manoDev »

nextaccountic wrote: post #302
manoDev wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Concerned” is an understatement. USA is already operating at nazi Germany levels and more than half of the civil society is approving. Not that it’s a surprise for global spectators though - it’s finally showing it’s true colors.

More than half is an exaggeration. Trump is not a popular president. With free and fair elections, a blue wave is more or less guaranteed

Creating a private militia, silencing dissent, declaring wars without congress vote… I don’t see how this is being allowed to happen without public approval, or at least, public apathy.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#313

Post by doom2 »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #262
zem wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

secret police kidnapping people off the streets didn't clue you in?!!

If you're referring to ICE, that's gross hyperbole, and honestly a little insulting to people who live / have lived in regimes with an actual secret police. The US is still a rights-based state, which means that when they arrest someone (legitimately or not), lawyers and human right advocates can eventually track them down. When a secret police disappears someone, they actually disappear . Families can spend years wo…

The arrest of a Turkish graduate student in Boston looked a lot like a kidnapping.[1] More recently, ICE responded to a judge's order to release a detained refugee by threatening to detain her family and send them to Texas if they came to pick her up and then forced the minor child to stay in a hotel room with three agents. [2, p.8] These may not be cases where people are secretly being taken by the state, but it's not hard to see why people might call the government organization detaining people and moving them around so as not to be found "secret police" or "disappearings".

[1] https://youtu.be/oRiQz7mOY6A [2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#314

Post by ssl-3 »

infogulch wrote: post #299
ssl-3 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I agree to sell widgets to the government that meet certain agreed-upon specifications, and then I elect to forego those earlier agreements and tell them to fuck off, then that's different. Is that what happened here?

I reject the premise that the military can't request a change to the spec of military equipment they purchase. Obviously it was foolish to sign a contract that added any more restrictions than "all lawful purposes".

Huh? I'm trying to learn here. I don't have a dog in this race. :)

Suppose a buyer and myself agree on a contract for the production and purchase of 60,000 widgets of design C. Sometime later, they decide that they don't want design C widgets and insist upon design G instead. The buyer is in breach of contract -- not me.

Now, changes do happen. Buyers (people, businesses, and governments alike) can and often do decide to go in a different direction. It's the kind of thing that happens every day.

A new contract (or quite often, an amendment such as a change order) can be drawn up and -- if we can agree on the terms -- maybe I'll be producing design G widgets and everyone is happy. That also happens every day.

But one party (even the military) can't just unilaterally alter the terms of the deal, and I'm not obligated to agree to the new change at all.

At any given time, I can't be compelled to produce design G widgets unless I've previously agreed to produce design G widgets. That's illegal.

(Unless it has been made legal. We've definitely legislated that before, such as with the Defense Production Act in WWII that forced manufacturers to produce things like military trucks instead of other things like civilian cars.

But that definitely doesn't happen every day, and we aren't operating under those kinds of laws today as I write this in 2026. It can change -- and it can indeed change very rapidly -- but it has not yet changed.)

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#316

Post by idiotsecant »

Chance-Device wrote: post #197
idiotsecant wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military is perhaps the biggest possible customer around. They do plenty of things that aren't blowing people up. It's not bad to help with non combat tasks.

Yeah, but aren’t all of those things in service of “blowing people up”?

Blowing people up is sometimes morally correct. Defending yourself against attack is very nearly always so.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#317

Post by bulletsvshumans »

wrs wrote: post #209
softwaredoug wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It opens the door for Democratic administrations to do the same to vendors for their own political reasons. That’s ultimately why Ted Cruz spoke out about the Kimmel cancelation. It doesn’t take long until those powers are turned against you.

No it doesn't. As with so many other things this administration does, this door was not open . They bashed through it anyway.

Either way, you can walk through the door after. Unless we reseal it legislatively. Resetting norms may be a lost cause at this point.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#318

Post by wrs »

bulletsvshumans wrote: post #317
wrs wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. As with so many other things this administration does, this door was not open . They bashed through it anyway.

Either way, you can walk through the door after. Unless we reseal it legislatively. Resetting norms may be a lost cause at this point.

It depends on the door. Norms are one thing, but these folks went beyond norm violations quite a while ago. If someone is going to ignore the actual law and do whatever they want until the Supreme Court calls them on it, changing the law doesn’t help.

Also, I’d like think that at this point “Trump got away with it” does not set a new norm.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#319

Post by 6thbit »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #306
6thbit wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also the part i don't get. People flocking over to pay anthropic which _has already been used in a war_ and cancelling existing subs to a provider that has not yet but will? Ethical boundaries seem difficult to draw here. I don't really see people taking the stance of "No longer paying any of them" which would make a bit more sense to me. Anthropic already had layed in bed with pentagon, how did that fit thei…

I don't get the impression Anthropic tried to walk anything back, they just balked when they were informed that the DoD wasn't willing to abide by their terms to refrain from using Claude for surveillance or straight up selecting targets to kill. But you're right that means Anthropic's hands are not exactly clean, just less bloody than OpenAI's or xAI's

Is it? They already had signed with gov months ago and have been used by them actively in their Iran attacks. Whereas OpenAI just signed and deployed at this time.
Post reply on HN