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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by dgellow »

mbgerring wrote: post #253
sowbug wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. They want to punish a company for expressing values that introduce friction to the whims of the current administration.

No, stop, I understand the politics here, but I’m asking about the technical fundamentals. LLMs produce output of unknowable and unpredictable accuracy , and as far as we know, this is a mathematically unsolvable problem . This shit should not be within 1000 miles of a weapons system. Why are we even talking about this?

Because of the politics.

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

#392

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #331
lukewrites wrote: post #6

I admire Anthropic for sticking to their principles, even if it affects the bottom line. That’s the kind of company you want to work for.

If you're a billionaire there's no risk to "sticking to principles", so there's nothing to admire. Also that's not what they're doing. These are calculated moves in a negotiation and the trump regime only has 3 years left. Even a CEO can think 4 years ahead. It's probably in Anthropic's interest to throw grok to these clowns and watch them fail to build anything with it for 3 years.

Considering how many bootlicking billionaires I see these days, it is still a bit surprising.

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

#393

Post by BLKNSLVR »

amelius wrote: post #290

What's with the Republicans. Do they want a strong or a weak government? I can't tell anymore.

I don't think it's ever been about strong or weak, or at least I don't think that's where the differentiation is. You always want 'strong' government, committed to the things it says it's committed to.

It's more been about the size of the government; that it should do a minimal amount of control (and do it well), but leave a lot of things for "the market to decide".

Having said all that, I think this issue is just tangential to any big/small government ideology. This is a hissy fit about a defence contractor sticking to their agreement where the DoD want to change the agreement in a way that goes against the contractors Mission Statement and/or the US Constitution itself.

The old ideology of the Republicans doesn't mean anything here. This administration is purely about 'give me what I want, now!'.

And it's whims change with the breeze. Do not look for consistency here.

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

#394

Post by bluebarbet »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #327
bluebarbet wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely the purpose of the organization is to defend the country? War seems more like the failure mode. The point here is that it was established by a law of Congress and so has an official name that should be respected until another law changes it.

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

#395

Post by inaros »

outside2344 wrote: post #249
NickAndresen wrote: post #15

"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?

If you read Anthropic statement carefully, they explicitly confirm they are already working with the U.S. government on a range of military and national security use cases, many including areas that clearly relate to real world lethal operations.

They are only refusing two narrow, but important categories. Framing this as blanket "refusal to support the DoD" feels like an angry, reactive own goal rather than a careful reading of what they actually said.

So far the march toward dictatorship keep being detoured by sheer incompetence. In any case, is hard to seize power when you can’t organize a group chat...

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

#397

Post by crocowhile »

Someone1234 wrote: post #53

Topics like this are where I struggle with HN philosophy. Normally avoiding politics and ideology where possible, created higher quality and more interesting discussions. But how do you even begin to discuss that Tweet or this topic without talking about ideology and to contextualize this with other seemingly unrelated things currently going on in the US? I genuinely don't think I'm conversationally agile enough to b…

Being a hacker used to be an extremely political and ideological movement. Then capitalism came along and bought the term. It's about time we take that word back where it belongs.

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

#398

Post by layer8 »

seliopou wrote: post #204
bubblewand wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you (and others) are trying to apply some kind of guess at the "supply chain risk" designation, but it means something specific. Here's the term defined in an official context: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-... .

That link is broken for me but I assume you meant to link to [0]. I think if there is a “safeguard” in a system, that definitely fits the bill of a supply chain risk. The only vague term here is “adversary”. [0]: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-... .

Working link: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.239-7018-supply-chain-...

HN separates trailing dots from URLs, so that you can have working URLs at the end of a sentence. Hence you have to percent-encode trailing dots if they are a necessary part of the actual URL. (Same for some other punctuation characters, probably.)

This behavior is common for auto-hyperlinking of URLs in running text, so it’s bad practice to have such URLs.

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

#399

Post by cobolcomesback »

alephnerd wrote: post #387
cobolcomesback wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GovCloud revenue is in the tens of billions of dollars. Bedrock less so. Almost every FedRAMP product uses the same codebase for Fed and non-Fed, and this would force most FedRAMP vendors to blackball Anthropic.

The JWCC, which is larger than GovCloud, was only $9b, split across three companies, over ten years. It’s peanuts compared to the investments that the hyperscalers have with Anthropic.

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

#400

Post by ks2048 »

mbgerring wrote: post #253
sowbug wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. They want to punish a company for expressing values that introduce friction to the whims of the current administration.

No, stop, I understand the politics here, but I’m asking about the technical fundamentals. LLMs produce output of unknowable and unpredictable accuracy , and as far as we know, this is a mathematically unsolvable problem . This shit should not be within 1000 miles of a weapons system. Why are we even talking about this?

The DoD killing lots of people based on faulty intelligence - never!

Joking aside, this administration clearly cares much less others. They don't care if innocent people are killed.

Post reply on HN