Live data from Hacker News

I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

twitter.com

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#321
post #14

Why are so many adopting this name for what is by law, by the American people, called the Department of Defense? The name change pertains directly to the Anthropic issue, which is the function of the government and department, the power of the American people to govern themselves, and the role of the president relative to the soveriegn American people.

Because it sounds a lot cooler.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#322

"They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as…

The real question we should be asking is what others HAVE agreed to. Has OpenAI just agreed to let the government go crazy with their models?

Elon has agreed to all demands and can’t wait for gigahitler to take the reigns. I swear there is no room for good guys in this is there.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#323

This could kill Anthropic. The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude canno…

Not entirely true. The designation only applies to projects that touch the federal government, or software developed specifically for the federal government. Contractors can still use Claude internally in their business, so long as it is not used in government work directly. A complete ban would be adding Anthropic to the NDAA, which requires congress. The DoD designation allows the DoD to make contractors certify th…

> Contractors can still use Claude internally in their business, so long as it is not used in government work directly.

I work in the enterprise SaaS and cybersecurity industry. There is no way to guarantee that amongst any FedRAMP vendor (which is almost every cybersecurity and enterprise SaaS or on their roadmap).

Almost all FedRAMP products I've built, launched, sold, or funded were the same build as the commerical offering, but with siloed data and network access.

This means the entire security and enterprise SaaS industry will have to shift away from Anthropic unless the DPA is invoked and management is changed.

More likely, I think the DoD/DoW and their vendors will force Anthropic to retrain a sovereign model specifically for the US Gov.

Edit: Can't reply

> This is the core assertion that is not clear nor absolute.

If Walmart can forcibly add verbiage banning AWS from it's vendors and suppliers, the US government absolutely can. At least with Walmart they will accept a segmented environment using GCP+Azure+OCI. Retraining a foundational model to be Gov compliant is a project that would cost billions.

By declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk, it will now be contractually added by everyone becuase no GRC team will allow Anthropic anywhere in a company that even remotely touches FedRAMP and it will be forcibly added into contracts.

No one can guarantee that your codebase was not touched by Claude or a product using Claude in the background, so this will be added contractually.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the same Administration that reversed a previous block, and allowed NVIDIA to sell H200 to China?

Good thing this administration will be a lame duck in 8 months, and they know it.

Are you sure? They have one skill: playing social media, and it serves them well.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#325
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are the one lying trying to get political gotchas here. There is no "trying to exert veto power" absolutely anywhere, Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. If they didn't like the terms, they didn't need to sign the contract.

What are you suggesting here? US government breaching the contract already signed? I am not aware of that happening here. > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. It's called negotiation in business. I am sure both sides are clear-eyed on what the consequences were and Anthropic made a calculated bet (probably correctly) that some segment of their emplo…

It appears that when it comes to Jesse Jackson you're entirely capable of understanding how a shakedown works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47046514

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#326

This could kill Anthropic. The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude canno…

None of the hyper scalers are going to stop offering Claude. All of the big 3 have invested billions of dollars into Anthropic, and have tens (if not hundreds) of billions more tied up in funding deals with them. Amazon and Google are two of the largest shareholders of Anthropic.

Anthropic is going to be fine. The DoD is going to walk this back and pretend it never happened to save face.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#327
post #14

Why are so many adopting this name for what is by law, by the American people, called the Department of Defense? The name change pertains directly to the Anthropic issue, which is the function of the government and department, the power of the American people to govern themselves, and the role of the president relative to the soveriegn American people.

Well put and it bothers me too. It seems to be another case of Orwellian manipulation, i.e. an expression of power through language, functioning as a litmus test of the speaker's loyalty. Serious publications are not going along with it. More craven or (here) thoughtless ones are falling in line.

I mean the original name switch was much more "Orwellian manipulation" if anything changing it back to war is undoing the bullshit implications that everything it does is defense.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#328
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI? My guy, it's a text predictor slot machine. Very useful tool but will never be AGI.

I'm not taking a position here but the person you're replying to stated that Anthropic are working on AGI, not that their current LLM offering will evolve into AGI.

Ok that's different then. LLM, by definition, can't be AGI. But AGI can be AGI with another technology.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#329
post #306

Strange times. I truly feel these are the last days of our Republic. Especially if more aren't willing to take a stand.

I'd say you're right, except that Trump is near death (maybe) and (more importantly) very unpopular.

[dead]

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#330
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There was already a Democrat that beat Trump once. And looking at the past elections, it looks like the US elections are currently in a pendulum where the balance of power just swings back and forth.

Yes but you are not suggesting Biden runs again? I meant now, who looks like they could beat the Trump machine, possibly Gavin Newsom but not popular outside of Cali.
Post reply on HN