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

471–480 of 491 posts

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

#471

Post by p0w3n3d »

gavin_gee wrote: post #433
shevy-java wrote: post #415

I disagree with OpenAI. I think ALL those mega-money seeking AI organisations need to be designated as supply chain risk. Also, they drove the prices up for RAM - I don't want to pay extra just because these companies steal all our RAM now. The laws must change - I totally understand that corporations seek profit, that is natural, but this is no longer a free market serving individual people. It is now a racket where…

its the definition of a free market that RAM prices have increased. supply and demand.

If by free market you mean a guy that stands before the market's entry gate possibly with baseball bat, asking the providers to sell him all the goods so they can resell, then I disagree

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

#472

Post by OJFord »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #407
OJFord wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been the MoD in the UK afaik, but there was the War Office I suppose.

It was the War Office from 1857 to the mid 60s.

Different entities, but yes I said 'there was the War Office'.

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

#473

Post by badgersnake »

stevage wrote: post #468
badgersnake wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Same as it always has. The senate has to vote on whether to convict. And they always vote no.

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

#474

Post by ben_w »

fleshmonad wrote: post #454
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resembles anti-vax logic. We haven’t been invaded because our military maintains a strong deterrence and strategic depth.

Yeah, otherwise the USA would have been invaded by Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and a hundred more, and they all would have a fight over who can have it. Thank god the US defended themselves against those terrible guys. Especially the WMDs were quite the close call, the Iraqis were minutes away from nuking the land of the mart.

Cuba's an odd rhetorical choice given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

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

#476

Post by Forgeties79 »

mlyle wrote: post #383
Forgeties79 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tools are not good enough to be ethically deployed, least of all for surveillance. Just because Congress is failing to do its job doesn’t mean the executive branch should simply do what it wants under the guise of “national security.”

I think there's a notable distinction between "domestic mass-surveillance" and use in international intelligence gathering. The poster said: > Both their stances are flawed because their ethics apparently end at the border It seems like Anthropic is ethically concerned about use of autonomous weapons anywhere, and by surveillance by a country against its own citizens. Countries spy on each other a lot, but the ethica…

I’m just attempting to clarify what they said though I feel it was pretty clear to begin with.

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

#477

Post by Otterly99 »

kgdiem wrote: post #356
lyu07282 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have any imagination? Who is going to read the whisper transcripts of mass surveillance to make decisions on who to target for repression? That's what LLMs are good for, it allows mass surveillance to scale. You can feed it the transcript from millions of flock cameras (yes they have highly sensitive microphones) for example. Or you hack or supply chain compromise smartphones at scale and then covertly rec…

If I was building this in a system design interview I would use whisper, NLP, and “classic ML” classifiers with deterministic results. I would not want an LLM in the loop at all. Facebook and Google have been able to target you better than you could even perceive for years. LLMs are slow, expensive and inconsistent. More importantly It’s not the right tool for the job. Really feels like more “oohhh look at how import…

I was asking myself the same question this morning and kind of came to the same conclusion as you. It makes much more sense to design a automated drone piloting system built with a decision-making algorithm than use a LLM. For Mass surveillance, I can see a bit more the use case, where you can use classical methods to process the information about a specific person but use the LLM to generate summaries or synthesize it when you have information that is not too organized or comes from different sources. I definitely think there is some overconfidence on the side of the decision makers in the government on what these tools can be used for. Also maybe some wishful thinking on what LLMs will be able to do in a few years?

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

#478

Post by scottyah »

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?

There's a (maybe new?) focus on health in America, and it is tied directly with dollars spent for the most part. If I made $50k more a year, it would disappear down the drain on purchases like lean bison meat instead of fatty ground beef. I'd get more expensive, locally grown and better tasting vegetables. I'd get a home where I could have a cold plunge, sauna, and whatever new toys that data or rumor backs that promise to reduce brain fog, increase energy, etc. As always, America has so much diversity in what you can buy and food/health is no different.

I imagine it'd be hard to take your family from healthy meals back to rice and beans.

Or they all just get fancy cars and big houses to show off, who knows. I certainly can't be sure how my life would change with 7 figures.

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

#479

Post by shaftway »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #470
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…

s/DoD/DoW/g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347

> Among U.S. federal agencies, the order authorized the official use of the secondary title "Department of War" for the United States Department of Defense. The department now refers to itself as the "Department of War" for non-statutory purposes, but is still technically named the Department of Defense, as only an act of Congress can formally change the name of a federal department.

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

#480

Post by mrguyorama »

nashashmi wrote: post #305
OJFord wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because the latter sounds hilariously childish?

Actually that was the original name. And it was a more honest name.

What is currently considered the DoD was built after WW2 as the "National Military Establishment" by the "National Security Act of 1947" which restructured and reformed significant war and military assets under the "Secretary of Defense" and the NME was very quickly renamed the "Department of Defense".

The "Department of War" during WW2 was in control of the Army, and was separate from the Department of the Navy and eventual Department of the Air Force (spun off from the Army) and was headed by the "Secretary of War".

Changing the name to "Defense" was an intentional act by a President and government who wanted to reduce the power of the Military Industrial Complex and reduce the "War" focus of a subset of the government, and force the different departments to work together and share toys.

The reorganization was desired for many reasons but Truman made lots of talk about how this was about the national defense and made gestures to the Pearl Harbor attack as something relevant. Different departments failing to work together was a huge problem during WW2, and other wars. Putting them all under one single cabinet position, the Secretary of Defense, was a significant point.

This vocab was used during the war, about the reorganization being about the defense of the nation.

Similarly, NATO is a defense only pact, in very clear terms.

There was tons of debate in the US government at the time as to whether we had viable intelligence of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor ahead of time and it wasn't properly utilized or disseminated. In fact, there were many such instances in the Pacific Theater early on, where poor intelligence handling resulted in worse battle outcomes.

The point of the Department of Defense is to Defend America, and they do that by being in control of our Military. Letting our defense assets bully the world is the Utter Failure of the American voting public over the past 100 years.

Post reply on HN