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

Post by johnfn » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 12:21 AM UTC

Teknoman117 wrote: post #534

johnfn wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writeup here[1] was pretty clear to me. > *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic. > *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one sa…

I just wish there was a stronger source on this. I am inclined to agree you and the source you cited, but unfortunately > [1] This story requires some reading between the lines - the exact text of the contract isn’t available - but something like it is suggested by the way both sides have been presenting the negotiations. I deal with far too many people who won't believe me without 10 bullet-proof sources but get ver…

Post by uncletammy » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 12:21 AM UTC

lesuorac wrote: post #442

_fat_santa wrote: post #230

The disconnect here for me is, I assume the DoW and Anthropic signed a contract at some point and that contract most likely stipulated that these are the things they can do and these are the things they can't do. I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original co…

Regardless of the original contract, it's entirely appropriate for a vendor to tell the customer how to use any materials. Imagine a _leaded_ pipe supplier not being allowed to tell the department of war they shouldn't use leaded pipes for drinking water! It's the job of the vendor to tell the customer appropriate usage.

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 12:23 AM UTC

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #486

lesuorac wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the original contract, it's entirely appropriate for a vendor to tell the customer how to use any materials. Imagine a _leaded_ pipe supplier not being allowed to tell the department of war they shouldn't use leaded pipes for drinking water! It's the job of the vendor to tell the customer appropriate usage.

This is quite literally the norm for things with known dangerous use cases. Go look at the package on a kitchen knife and it says not to be used as a weapon

Post by n0x1103 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 12:24 AM UTC

_fat_santa wrote: post #230

The disconnect here for me is, I assume the DoW and Anthropic signed a contract at some point and that contract most likely stipulated that these are the things they can do and these are the things they can't do. I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original co…

Post by hirako2000 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 12:24 AM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #357

_fat_santa wrote: post #230

The disconnect here for me is, I assume the DoW and Anthropic signed a contract at some point and that contract most likely stipulated that these are the things they can do and these are the things they can't do. I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original co…

The writeup here[1] was pretty clear to me. > *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic. > *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one sa…