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

We Will Not Be Divided

notdivided.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 912 posts

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#411

Post by snickerbockers »

inkysigma wrote: post #181
timr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to t…

I think the bigger insanity here is the labeling of a supply chain risk. It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. It's another when it actively attempts to isolate Anthropic for political reasons.

> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic.

But that's what the supply-chain risk is for? I'm legitimately struggling to understand this viewpoint of yours wherein they are entitled to refuse to directly purchase Anthropic products but they're not entitled to refuse to indirectly purchase Anthropic products via subcontractors.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#413

Post by snickerbockers »

tshaddox wrote: post #225
timr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. This is literally the mechanism by which the DoD does what you're suggesting. Generally speaking, the DoD has to do procurement via competitive bidding. They can't just arbitrarily exclude vendors from a bid, and playing a game of "mother may I use Anthropic?" for every potential govern…

That doesn’t sound right. Surely there’s a big difference between Anthropic selling the government direct access to its models, and an unrelated contractor that sells pencils to the government and happens to use Anthropic’s services to help write the code for their website.

Let me put it this way: DoD needs a new drone and they want some gimmicky AI bullshit. They contract the drone from Lockheed. Lockheed is not allowed to source the gimmicky AI bullshit from Anthropic because they have been declared a supply-chain risk on the basis that they have publicly stated their intention to produce products which will refuse certain orders from the military.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#414

Post by jamiequint »

busko wrote: post #313
hakrgrl wrote: post #292

1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW. So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "

For those who don't use X: https://xcancel.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175

WTF is this garbage site?

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#415

Post by tyre »

snickerbockers wrote: post #411
inkysigma wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger insanity here is the labeling of a supply chain risk. It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. It's another when it actively attempts to isolate Anthropic for political reasons.

> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. But that's what the supply-chain risk is for? I'm legitimately struggling to understand this viewpoint of yours wherein they are entitled to refuse to directly purchase Anthropic products but they're not entitled to refuse to indirectly purchase Anthropic products via subcontractors.

Supply chain risk is not meant for this. The government isn't banning Anthropic because using it harms national security. They are banning it in retribution for Anthropic taking a stand.

It's the same as Trump claiming emergency powers to apply tariffs, when the "emergency" he claimed was basically "global trade exists."

Yes, the government can choose to purchase or not. No, supply chain risk is absolutely not correct here.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#416

Post by nikolay »

hakrgrl wrote: post #292

1.5 hours after this was posted, Sam Altman stated openai will work with the DoW. So much for this waste of a domain name. https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 "Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. "

He's the reason why many people avoid OpenAI as he is among the top 3 most untrustworthy people in tech!

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#417

Post by w4yai »

largbae wrote: post #409

The signatories of this (letter, petition, whatever) are the same folks who profit from creating this Pandora's Box. If you don't want it opened, stop making it?

There are other valid use cases than war for AI.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#420

Post by snickerbockers »

dyslexit wrote: post #262
timr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. This is literally the mechanism by which the DoD does what you're suggesting. Generally speaking, the DoD has to do procurement via competitive bidding. They can't just arbitrarily exclude vendors from a bid, and playing a game of "mother may I use Anthropic?" for every potential govern…

You're making it sound like this is commonly practiced and a standard procedure for the DoD, yet according to Anthropic, >Designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk would be an unprecedented action—one historically reserved for US adversaries, never before publicly applied to an American company. Some very brief googling also confirmed this for me too. >Everyone is fixated on the name of the rule (and to be fair: t…

>an unprecedented action

it's also unprecedented for a contractor to suddenly announce their products will, from now on, be able to refuse to function based on the product's evaluation of what it perceives to be an ethical dilemma. Just because silicon valley gets away with bullying the consumer market with mandatory automatic updates and constantly-morphing EULAs doesn't mean they're entitled to take that attitude with them when they try to join the military industrial complex. Actually they shouldn't even be entitled to take that attitude to the consumer market but sadly that battle was lost a long time ago.

>for _any _ purpose

they're allowed to use it for any purpose not related to a government contract.

Post reply on HN