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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by adastra22 »

cobolcomesback wrote: post #326
nickysielicki wrote: post #237

This could kill Anthropic. The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude canno…

None of the hyper scalers are going to stop offering Claude. All of the big 3 have invested billions of dollars into Anthropic, and have tens (if not hundreds) of billions more tied up in funding deals with them. Amazon and Google are two of the largest shareholders of Anthropic. Anthropic is going to be fine. The DoD is going to walk this back and pretend it never happened to save face.

I don't think you understand. This supply chain risk designation is viral. Every Claude model provider now has to decide whether to (1) drop Anthropic models, or (2) drop every single government contract, every contract with government contractors, or any customer who has any customer to any degree of connection to a government contract [which is effectively everyone], or (3) go to jail.

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

#792

Post by charcircuit »

rushcar wrote: post #263

"Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic." This is authoritarian behavior. You're having trouble negotiating a contract, so instead of just canceling it - you basically ban all of F500 from doing business with that firm.

[flagged]

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

#794

Post by anigbrowl »

nelox wrote: post #690
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.

Yep. Choosing not to renew a contract with a provider who has voluntarily excluded itself from your use case is respecting that provider's choice and acting accordingly.

The thing is nobody is saying the government is bad for not renewing the contract. Like it or not, that's definitely the administration's prerogative.

What we're seeing here is that when a vendor declines to change the terms of its contractual agreement for ethical reasons, the government publicly attacks it.

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

#796

Post by NewsaHackO »

phs318u wrote: post #776
NewsaHackO wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's clear. People keep pointing to the wording used in the statement to say it, but I wonder if it has to do with constitutionally; domestic surveillance of people in the US without a warrant is against the constitution, and surveillance of non-citizens outside the U.S is not. Can they even be compelled by the executive branch to do an action that may be unconstitutional?

Sure they can. They can “temporarily” suspend parts of the constitution in times of “grave national peril”, and hand out presidential pardons in advance. But doing that would surely be considered dropping the last fig-leaf from the performance art of giving a fuck about the constitution.

I guess that my point is: Saying that you are against surveillance in general is a morally sound position, but would not be a defense if the DoD invokes the DPA, as one can't just refuse an order due to it being immoral. One can refuse an order if the order contradicts with the constitution.

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

#798

Post by adastra22 »

alephnerd wrote: post #387
cobolcomesback wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the hyper scalers are going to stop offering Claude. All of the big 3 have invested billions of dollars into Anthropic, and have tens (if not hundreds) of billions more tied up in funding deals with them. Amazon and Google are two of the largest shareholders of Anthropic. Anthropic is going to be fine. The DoD is going to walk this back and pretend it never happened to save face.

GovCloud revenue is in the tens of billions of dollars. Bedrock less so. Almost every FedRAMP product uses the same codebase for Fed and non-Fed, and this would force most FedRAMP vendors to blackball Anthropic.

This restriction is viral. If AWS hosts Claude models, Lockheed can no longer use AWS for anything. Every defense contractor will pull out. What if Lockheed uses Asana or Jira or Slack? Guess what, they better not use Claude ANYWHERE in their organizations, or else all defense contractors will have to drop these products. Any any other company whose product they use in the design or manufacture of their products - if anyone, anywhere is using Claude products, they have to be dropped.

The downstream effects of this are HUGE.

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

#799

Post by drawnwren »

mrandish wrote: post #743
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..."

> "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..." While I agree with Anthropic's position on this regardless, the original contract wording does matter in terms of making either the government look even more unreasonable or Anthropic look a little less reasonable. The issue is a subtle ambiguity in Dario's statement: "...have never been included in our contracts" because i…

I'm in a weird spot where I do agree with your assessment of the core claim. But putting that aside, in the world where the DoW's claim _is_ correct -- I think you don't have any choice other than to designate them a supply chain risk.

Disregarding who is right or wrong for a moment, if the DoW are right (which I'm not personally inclined to believe, but we're ignoring that for the moment) -- how else can they avoid secondhand Claude poisoning?

Supposing they really want to use their software for things disallowed by Claude's (now or future) ToS, it seems like designating it a supply chain risk is the only way they can ensure that their contractors don't include Claude (either indirectly as a wrapper or tertially through use of generated code etc)

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

#800

Post by skygazer »

epolanski wrote: post #772
gentleman11 wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump doesn't want another election to happen. He needs some powerful tools to ensure that happens, ie, massive scale ai surveillance and manipulation. Eg, like Xi uses in China. I bet anyone here he starts a war as his excuse

The sad part is that I can't process whether your post is an exaggeration or the reality. It's insane how numb I am becoming to these blurry thin lines

Don’t become numb. They want normal people to be depoliticized, silent, and withdrawn. We’re so much easier to subjugate and exploit that way: hopeless and spineless. They take more and more each day.
Post reply on HN