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

Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 319 posts

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#61

Post by hedayet »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #4
jawns wrote: post #3

The consequence is that any company that does business with the U.S. military, and potentially any company that does business with the government in general, must stop using Anthropic's products for that work. Anthropic has vowed to fight this designation in court. Without weighing in on the constitutionality or legality of the move, I think it's obvious that this kind of retaliation power is unmatched by any private…

Every action has an opposite reaction. The DoD has made itself riskier to do business with, and future contacts will have to price that risk in.

In Hegseth's voice - No longer politically correct "DoD". It's precisely violent DoW now.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#62

Post by rjbwork »

mrtksn wrote: post #52
stonogo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an "implementation detail." Either obeying contract law subjects you to being designated a supply-chain risk, or it does not, and that decision has ramifications outside this "implementation."

Irrelevant. The president holds all the cards, he is above the law and you are a supply chain risk if you ask anything else other than “how high” when you are told to jump. Laws or contracts are things in the past. The most a contract can do is define your limits and obligations, not your rights or privileges,

You got downvoted a bit but I upvoted. You're clearly being descriptive in your statements, not prescriptive. I tend to agree that this is how things are now.

Our country is not being run by the rule of law right now.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#64

Post by bdangubic »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #7
scuff3d wrote: post #6

Huh, and I thought conservatives were all about government staying our of the way of the private sector. Go figure...

StOp MaKiNg EvErYtHiNg PolItIcaL

In an article that discusses Pentagon doing stupid shit? :)

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#65

Post by beambot »

rustyhancock wrote: post #35
baxtr wrote: post #19

I would love to understand in more detail what kind of use cases we’re talking about. Is this about locating the right target for a sortie for example?

Anthropic already had a deal via Palantir so it seems it's models are used in a variety of ways by the pentagon. The reports about Venezuela and Iran seem to suggest it's primary role was processing bulk intel. But also that it was being used in planning and target selection. Presumably what spooked Anthropic was that these tools were about to be directed internally. But it's not clear if this is a point of principle…

Anthropic was very clear about the usage restrictions: They didn't want them being used to control autonomous kill drones or mass surveillance of the American public. That's it. DoW didn't like that -- for reasons that will probably soon become apparent.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#67

Post by kelnos »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #56
oompydoompy74 wrote: post #16

Exported all my chats and deleted my ChatGPT account yesterday. The current administration not liking you is the strongest signal I could possibly have to go all in on a particular company.

[flagged]

That's not civil disobedience. It's voting with your wallet.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#68

Post by _heimdall »

pirate787 wrote: post #44
hk__2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love to understand in more detail what kind of use cases we’re talking about. The whole point is that the use-case does not matter; either you allow the government to do everything they want, either you don’t.

either you allow a democratically elected government to do everything they want that is legal, or you insert private corporate decision-making into every government decision which is untenable

You're missing the huge step that the government asking for "all legal uses" terminology is also who decides what is legal. Congress isn't willing to act as a check on executive power, meaning the contract they demanded simply says "I do what I want."
Post reply on HN