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

461–470 of 491 posts

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

#461

Post by hyperadvanced »

K0balt wrote: post #416
hyperadvanced wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really feel like this point is being lost in the whole discussion, so kudos for reiterating it. LLM’s can’t be “woke” or “aligned” - they fundamentally lack a critical thinking function that would require introspection. Introspection can be approximated by way of recursive feedback of LLM output back into the system or clever meta-prompt-engineering, but it’s not something that their system natively does. That isn’…

I agree that LLMs are machines and not persons, but in many ways, it is a distinction without a difference for practical purposes, depending on the model's embodiment and harness. They are still capable of acting as if they have an internal dialogue, emotions, etc., because they are running human culture as code. If you haven't seen this in the SOTA models or even some of the ones you can run on your laptop, you have…

If you’re lazy at promoting the machine (“boss mode”) then you get bad/lazy results. If you’re clever with it, then you get more clever results.

None of that points to any sort of interiority, and that is the category error you’re making. In fact, not even all humans have that kind of interiority, and it’s not necessarily a must have for being functional at a variety of tasks. LLM are literally not “running human culture as code” - that just isn’t what an LLM is. I’ll read the link, though.

Edit: read it and it’s not for me. All the best.

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

#462

Post by salawat »

fleshmonad wrote: post #455
amelius wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people are now dependent on their level of income. And they don't like financial uncertainty, just like anyone else. But yeah, I'd expect them to change jobs in the coming year or otherwise I'm going to agree with you.

>These people are now dependent on their level of income. Kinda sucks if you take a seven figure per annum job and are now dependent on their level of income. Quick question: Is this true for everyone? If I take a job that pays twice of what I earn now, my food spending is going to double for instance? Or is this an american thing?

It's actually in some verticals of the American industrial/business sector a bit of a shibboleth I think. There's a certain mentality around "visible conspicuous consumption" that is a signal to those in the upper class that you're a prime candidate for leaning on. You're hungry, will do anything to stay where you are, and can be relied upon to "play ball with the big boys" in part because if you don't, and try to take them down, they know what you did to get there. Someone who doesn't participate in such is something to be wary of. Less purchase for manipulation. Possibly an indication of a lesser degree of skin in the game. An indication of different priors I guess. I've often wondered if there's a similar distrust between the nouveau riche and old money for similar reasons. Wouldn't know myself though. Haven't bumped around in quite those high circles myself.

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

#463

Post by salawat »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same goes for anybody still working at OpenAI past Monday morning 9 am.

People's need for food and shelter doesn't go away because their employer is unethical.

[flagged]

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

#464

Post by stevenhuang »

kouteiheika wrote: post #447
stevenhuang wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand what palantir does.

Direct quote from their CEO: > Our product is used on occasion to kill people. Doesn't get any more clear than this.

In the same way operating systems are used on occasion to kill people. My point stands, you don't understand what palantir does. Palantir (Gotham) is a glorified data analytics platform. Gotham does nothing without the privileged data feeds that the IC provides. All Gotham does is process the collected data provided by the military and IC. Palantir is only a data vis platform. What part about this don't you get?

You are tilting at windmills and directing your criticisms at the wrong level. If you want change, change the laws and institutions that allow for this sort of data collection in the first place (of which palantir and orgs like it are not involved with).

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

#465

Post by ActorNightly »

dawnerd wrote: post #220
ActorNightly wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US population is a supply chain risk. Knowing what Trump did, prior to 2024, on the average, 7/10 people either voted or didn't vote in the 2024 election. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. All of this could have been avoided if all of the people who didn't vote had a decent moral compass and no matter how much they disagreed with Kamala, they could have voted for her because she didn't try to overthrow the gover…

I would expand that to the mainstream media and social media are the real supply chain risks. Majority of the population only know what’s fed to them and when their tv channel of choice and algorithm decides what they see - that’s a huge problem for getting info out. Im not even sure how we can fix it, really.

In 2020 or 2016, one could blame the media somewhat.

In 2024, there was no secret about his 2016 term, and the felony conviction, no matter what the algorithm fed you. After all of that, if you didn't vote against Trump, you are just a bad person, period.

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

#467

Post by laughing_man »

adleyjulian wrote: post #453
laughing_man wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pentagon does this kind of thing all the time. It's just usually not this official.

Completely false. It's the first time a US company has been designated a supply chain risk. Now the likes of Boeing can't use them. Health companies with Medicare/Tricare contracts don't know and will hold off until it's fully litigated. This is not the government saying they're going with a different vendor, it's the government saying everyone has to choose to either have federal contracts or Claude, they can't have…

So sure... and so wrong. I've done government contracting. If you angered the Pentagon enough they would simply blacklist you. You couldn't get a contract or be a part of someone else's contract.

The difference with Anthropic is it's open and above board instead of the customer telling a company "You can't sub with those guys or you won't get the contract."

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

#468

Post by stevage »

badgersnake wrote: post #340
input_sh wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist. Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.

Yep, it’s a case of are they willing to impeach the president over this. And the answer is likely no. Some of the America first lot might vote against on ‘How does this help America’ grounds but I don’t see them getting near the threshold.

What does impeachment even achieve anymore?

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

#469

Post by stevenhuang »

ozmodiar wrote: post #371
Archonical wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Palantir is a glorified data aggregation/data visualization platform. Hooking up Claude to different data systems, with safeguards turned on in Claude Gov, is different than what the government is asking from them now. Similar to if the government had Claude hooked up to Tableau/some salesforce derivative and then asked it to be autonomous in the kill loop/spy on US citizens.

"Glorified" is underselling it. Thier ability to microtarget anyone based on any trait is basically the death of democratic discourse. Now, if you're saying the data is just there for anyone to do this, you're correct, and society needs to understand that and what it means.

That is not how Gotham works. The data you're talking about is most definitely not "just there" for anyone to have. The data is provided by the military and IC, Gotham is the data viz layer to make sense of it all. It does nothing on its own.

Again, palantir isn't what you think it is.

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

#470

Post by p0w3n3d »

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…

  s/DoD/DoW/g
Post reply on HN