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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by Loughla »

hirako2000 wrote: post #549
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…

It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue. The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.

I'm guessing you're being down voted because people don't know if you think that's a good thing or not. I do not think it's a good thing. Do you?

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

#632

Post by huevosabio »

joshuaheard wrote: post #623

Should military contractors put conditions on the use of their weapons? Here's our tank, but you can't invade Iran with it? We think your invasion of Venezuela is illegal, we're activating the kill switch on your jets. That's a real dangerous proposition.

They can, but the government can always just not buy their stuff.

That's not what the government is doing here.

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

#633

Post by dwattttt »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #545
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Playing devil's advocate: if I did in fact grab one of my kitchen knives to defend myself against a violent intruder into my kitchen, I wouldn't expect to be banned from buying kitchen knives. I'm not sure this is still a useful analogy, though...

And if you grabbed the knife and went on a violent spree, I'd absolutely expect the knife manufacturer to refuse to sell to you anymore.

The knife manufacturer isn't obligated to sell to you in either case, I'd expect them not to cut ties with you in the self defence scenario. But it is their choice.

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

#634

Post by rolymath »

tgma wrote: post #96
Analemma_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are the one lying trying to get political gotchas here. There is no "trying to exert veto power" absolutely anywhere, Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. If they didn't like the terms, they didn't need to sign the contract.

What are you suggesting here? US government breaching the contract already signed? I am not aware of that happening here. > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. It's called negotiation in business. I am sure both sides are clear-eyed on what the consequences were and Anthropic made a calculated bet (probably correctly) that some segment of their emplo…

I'm just curious, do you understand that the DoD isn't saying it won't do business with Anthropic. Its saying it will also ban any company that does business with the DoD (so 90% of large enterprises?) from doing business from Anthropic. Are you aware of this?

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

#635

Post by stackghost »

hirako2000 wrote: post #549
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…

It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue. The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.

>The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated.

According to whom?

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

#636

Post by runlaszlorun »

n0x1103 wrote: post #547
_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 entire administration negotiates in bad faith. literally every agreement they sign whether it's international trade or corporate contracts is up to the whim of a toddler with twitter

You pretty much nailed it. I can't even get outraged at any given instance now that the trendline is so staggeringly clear.

I can't see anyway this ends well for the US. I say this as both an American and a military veteran.

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

#638

Post by aidenn0 »

garbawarb wrote: post #228

This sounds like a message to would-be founders: don't base your company in the US. The strongest markets to do business are the ones with the most freedom from government meddling. In the US, big government is happy to use its power to crush private enterprise that it doesn't like.

Note that previously this label has been applied (nearly?) exclusively to non-US companies. US companies that don't do business with the DoD are not affected, and non-US companies that do business with the DoD are affected.

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

#639

Post by Loughla »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #545
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Playing devil's advocate: if I did in fact grab one of my kitchen knives to defend myself against a violent intruder into my kitchen, I wouldn't expect to be banned from buying kitchen knives. I'm not sure this is still a useful analogy, though...

If I shoot someone, something that is explicitly warned against in firearm safety materials that come with every purchase of a new firearm, I am no longer allowed to purchase any more firearms.

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

#640

Post by hirako2000 »

Loughla wrote: post #631
hirako2000 wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue. The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.

I'm guessing you're being down voted because people don't know if you think that's a good thing or not. I do not think it's a good thing. Do you?

I absolutely do not think that's a good thing. Was stating some sad facts.
Post reply on HN