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

361–370 of 491 posts

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

#361

Post by microtonal »

el_benhameen wrote: post #131
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However somehow Anthropic gets banished for upholding their redlines and OpenAI ends up with the cash? The current administration is so incompetent that I find this perfectly believable. I imagine the government signed with OpenAI in order to spite Anthropic. The terms wouldn't actually matter that much if the purpose was petty revenge. I don't know if that's actually what happened here, I just find it plausible.

Absolutely incompetent, but I don’t think that’s the cause here. I think Anthropic’s sin was publicly challenging the administration. They’re huge on optics. You can get away with anything as long as you praise and bow in public.

That and possibly OpenAI cofounder Brockman donating 25 million to a Trump-aligned PAC: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/brockman-openai-top-trum...

Grifters gonna grift.

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

#362

Post by replwoacause »

germandiago wrote: post #322
AlexVranas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I am going to stop using ChatGPT immediately.

Deleting my account today once I import my data to Claude

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

#364

Post by ruszki »

Finbel wrote: post #290
ruszki wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De... Stoping and questioning why somebody uses DoD or DoW is way more telling than using any of those. Especially that both are perfectly fine, even officially. A square was renamed in my home city about 20 years ago. We still use the original one usually, even teens know that name. I use a form of the original name of our main stadium which was renamed almos…

Or it could have just been a genuine question. I'm not American and I've seen DoW used in newspapers and thought the name change was official. Personally I've thought it a more apt and honest name for what they do. But the backlash in the commments here show how ideologically charged the question seem to be.

> Or it could have just been a genuine question.

Yes, exactly that’s why I wrote several examples to support why the chance for that is very-very slim.

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

#365

Post by ozmodiar »

pjc50 wrote: post #267
Nevermark wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the increasing impunity all three branches of government are giving themselves with regard to bad faith interpretations of the law, and a lack of government accountability when they color outside the lines. Much of the impunity is now Supreme Court settled law. We see clearly unconstitutional behavior every day, and there is no systematic, timely or effective, push back from any constitutionally enabled oversight.…

However there's one overriding concern which has got American to this point: "anti woke". That is, reinstating the load bearing racism and sexism.

A lot of that turned out to be pushed by Epstein and his associates. It's not hard to figure out why they would enjoy a world with lots of racism, sexism and general inequity. Its really disturbing when you consider how much power this network still has.

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

#366

Post by ozmodiar »

lobochrome wrote: post #189
Nevermark wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more stringent safeguards than previous agreements, including Anthropic's. Except they are not "more stringent". Sam Altman is being brazen to say that. In their own agreement as Altman relays: > The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control > any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must underg…

So you want OpenAI to create “laws”? I for one do not want ai labs to designate what is legally ok to do. I much prefer the demos to take care of that.

So we should just do whatever unethical thing we want, as long as it isn't strictly illegal/we won't get caught? Actually that does seem to be the Silicon Valley mantra. I dont know how people think this is going to play out well, particularly when the entities in question are often powerful enough to change the laws themselves.

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

#368

Post by docmars »

AlexVranas wrote: post #34
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 th…

Personally I think OpenAI is intending to infiltrate their political enemy's stronghold and look for ways to leak data to "get Trump" as per usual.

They'll say "oops" and then we'll spend the next few years listening to pointless Congressional hearings.

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

#369

Post by ghm2199 »

AlexVranas wrote: post #34
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 th…

Isn't it simpler to say that anthropic adopted a values based use approach and openai adopted a legal one?

Or In other words you can get to decide two ways to use a lucrative property:

1. designate it private and draft usage of how you allow to use it, per your value system(as long as values don't violate any laws)

2. In face of competition, give up some values and agree to a legal definition of use that favors you.

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

#370

Post by micromacrofoot »

_heimdall wrote: post #115
jedberg wrote: post #107

From what I can tell, the key difference between Anthropic and OpenAI in this whole thing is that both want the same contract terms, but Antropic wants to enforce those terms via technology, and OpenAI wants to enforce them by ... telling the Government not to violate them. It's telling that the government is blacklisting the company that wants to do more than enforce the contract with words on paper.

That isn't my understanding. OpenAI and others are wanting to limit the government to doing what is lawful based on what laws the government writes. Anthropic is wanting to draw their own line on what is allowed regardless of laws passed.

more based on what the government permits by not litigating rather than written law
Post reply on HN