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

Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 392 posts

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#361

Post by maddmann »

lebovic wrote: post #94

I used to work at Anthropic, and I wrote a comment on a thread earlier this week about Anthropic's first response and the RSP update [1][2]. I think many people on HN have a cynical reaction to Anthropic's actions due to of their own lived experiences with tech companies. Sometimes, that holds: my part of the company looked like Meta or Stripe, and it's hard not to regress to the mean as you scale. But not every patt…

This is an absolute rarity these days. Very appreciative of the true leadership on display here

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#362

Post by yesimahuman »

youarentrightjr wrote: post #265
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new." The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.

> "I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new." This isn't true, and there's no need to flame and be disingenuous. > The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s. Maybe you can provide evidence instead of restating the same claim that sibling comments to mine have made? I've already admitted that it wasn't invented by Hegseth. My claim is that he is popularizing it. In fact, you…

I don’t know why you’re getting so aggressively downvoted. You aren’t wrong at all. This is a term that has not seen such aggressive and widespread use until this administration.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#363

Post by grosswait »

silisili wrote: post #264
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4339 The reason that no one involved in the game's development objected to the word "warfighter" is that the U.S. Defense Department has used "warfighter" as a standard term for military personnel since the late 1980s or early 1990s: Thus Earl L. Wiener et al., Eds. Human Factors in Aviation, 1988 Warfighter is literally the Department of War's Amazonian or Googler or any othe…

Based on this and several other of your responses below, would you say that it's fair to conclude that it's been a term for a long time, perhaps more in military/defense circles, but recently has gotten more mainstream media use? I find it otherwise peculiar some feel like it appeared out of thin air, while others feel like it's always been a thing.

In my experience, yes, has always been a thing.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#364

Post by pklausler »

louisbourgault wrote: post #338
abustamam wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the alternative is be OK with their product being used for surveillance. Not sure why it's controversial that they said no, regardless of the reasoning. Yeah there's a lot of marketing speak and things to cover their asses. Let's call them out on that later. Right now let's applaud them for doing the right thing. FWIW I do not think they are the "good guys" (if I had a dollar for every company that had a policy…

> Let's call them out on that later. Right now let's applaud them for doing the right thing. Yes, yes, yes. When I first read the stuff about this yesterday, my immediate thought was "wait, these are the only two things they have a problem with?" But they made a stand, and that still matters. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. At least it's not Grok.

If one really wants to take a stand against this crazy administration, they shouldn’t start it by referring to Hegseth with his assumed title.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#365

Post by retsibsi »

bawolff wrote: post #334
retsibsi wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the US buys from a defense contractor who bought from abthropic, that really isn't that different from buying direct. The moral hazard is still there and the risk that anthropic will try to prevent their product from being used in that fashion is still there. You need to look closer at how the government is trying to use the 'supply chain risk' designation. Hegseth said this: > Effective immediately, no contract…

>You need to look closer at how the government is trying to use the 'supply chain risk' designation. Hegseth said this: >> Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. If Anthropic is really serious about their moral stances they could themselves refuse to sell indirectly to us military. Militarirs are…

> So yes, if the supply chain risk is that anthropic might suddenly pull out of military projects and leave people depending on them high and dry, this seems like an appropriate response.

But it is so much broader than that! He's saying that if any part of a company does any business with the US military, said company cannot do any business with Anthropic. How could that possibly be necessary to avoid the risk "that anthropic might suddenly pull out of military projects"?

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#366

Post by qsera »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #358
qsera wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much is your investment (you don't have to be exact)? The bottom line is that if the investment is not profitable, then there will be less and less investment, because only fewer and fewer can afford to lose money and stick to their values, until no one will be investing; how ever high your values might be... Sticking to your values when it cost growth is not sustainable for publicly traded companies...

Anthropic is a public benefit corporation. Investors who put money in knew this. It's in the corporate charter. The corporate charter is a public document. Fiduciary duty means the board and officers must act in accordance with the governing documents of the corporation. Even a regular corporation doesn't need to be just for the purpose of "money goes up". The board has discretion on how they create value.

> public benefit corporation > The board has discretion on how they create value.

It does not make much of a difference. If the investors don't get their investment returned with interest (as $$$), the majority of them are not going to invest further. That is from the set of investors who invest based on the companies ethical stand, which is probably only a small fraction of all the investments it has received.

Re: Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

#368

Post by sgarland »

pklausler wrote: post #364
louisbourgault wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's call them out on that later. Right now let's applaud them for doing the right thing. Yes, yes, yes. When I first read the stuff about this yesterday, my immediate thought was "wait, these are the only two things they have a problem with?" But they made a stand, and that still matters. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. At least it's not Grok.

If one really wants to take a stand against this crazy administration, they shouldn’t start it by referring to Hegseth with his assumed title.

I thought that too, but then wondered if they thought better of deliberately antagonizing a very powerful bully.
Post reply on HN