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

Post by tzs » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:35 AM UTC

trelane wrote: post #595

echoangle wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government thinks the terms of Anthropic are unacceptable, they can just stop using them, right? But why would you then retaliate and ban other companies from making business with Anthropic if they want to be a defense contractor? How do these requirements make Anthropic a supply chain risk that makes them unusable for use by other companies?

> If the government thinks the terms of Anthropic are unacceptable, they can just stop using them, right That is what they are doing. > why would you then [....] ban other companies from making business with Anthropic if they want to be a defense contractor Because, if it shops with Anthropic code, the DoD becomes subject to the restrictions when they receive the contractor's product. Anthropic's limitation is on the…

Post by ks2048 » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:35 AM UTC

hughw wrote: post #662

_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…

It's the Department of Defense. [1] "only an act of Congress can formally change the name of a federal department." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347 (edited to add the url I omitted)

Post by rubyfan » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:36 AM UTC

spuz wrote: post #648

johnfn wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point, but I think Dario's quote in GP corroborates ACX's story quite well: > "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."

Also, Trump's own words complaining about being forced to stick to Anthropic's terms of service: > The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:37 AM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #660

blhack wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the DoW ask for these things? This whole thing seems like people talking past each other, and that there’s something being left unsaid. Anthropic doesn’t make a product that would assist with kill drones, and they don’t have the right to deny subpoenas.

Anthropic specifically called out systems "that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets". I take that to mean they don't want the military using Claude to decide who to kill. As a hyperbolic yet frankly realistic example, they don't want Claude to make a mistake and direct the military to kill innocent children accidentally identified as narco-terrorists. At least, that's the…

Post by ppqqrr » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 1:38 AM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #762

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #416

Wow, and the only restrictions Anthropic asked for are (1) no mass domestic surveillance and (2) require human-in-the-loop for killing [1]. Those seem exceptionally reasonable, and even rather weak, lol :| [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war

That's the restrictions for now. New restrictions could be added later or the situation of the world could change where those no longer seem reasonable. The military needs that ability to move fast and not be held back.