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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by SauntSolaire »

medi8r wrote: post #551
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

These knife and lead analogies don't map well to the reality of AI. Note: just talking about the analogy itself not the point you are making. Edit: hell I get downvoted and look where the knife analogy got us. A load of weird replies miles away from anything related to AI or DoD.

You should give it longer than an hour before you start complaining about downvotes. Or just let your comment stand on it's own.

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

#873

Post by bigtex88 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #831
llm_nerd wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is currently an autocracy/idiocracy. A staggeringly corrupt, busted nation. Soon enough the midterms will be effectively cancelled. Americans remain blissfully unaware.

> The US is currently an autocracy/idiocracy. A staggeringly corrupt, busted nation. We are in a bad place right now, that is for certain. > Soon enough the midterms will be effectively cancelled. That would be a pretty big leap from where we are. I think it is important to pay attention, and very important to vote, but there is not a particularly plausible route to cancelling any elections. But they can certainly ma…

They won't outright cancel the elections but they will do things like send ICE to contested districts to harass law-abiding voters; pressure states to remove people from voter rolls and make it difficult if not impossible for them to re-register in time to be able to vote; and otherwise just scream fraud and cheating and stolen when they lose the House.

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

#874

Post by edmundsauto »

hbbio wrote: post #860
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..."

[flagged]

In this case, do you really believe that we should trust an EA less than this administration? EA as bad people is a stereotype; corruption, fraud, and breaking the law is the standard MO for this administration.

(Or maybe it’s catchier to respond glibly with “never trust a child rapist and convicted felon.”)

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

#876

Post by sowbug »

mbgerring wrote: post #253
sowbug wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. They want to punish a company for expressing values that introduce friction to the whims of the current administration.

No, stop, I understand the politics here, but I’m asking about the technical fundamentals. LLMs produce output of unknowable and unpredictable accuracy , and as far as we know, this is a mathematically unsolvable problem . This shit should not be within 1000 miles of a weapons system. Why are we even talking about this?

You don't understand the politics if you keep asking about the red herring of technical limitations.

Anthropic could have said "you can use our technology for anything but faster-than-light travel." The military administration would have said "you're not the boss of me," and the outcome would have been exactly the same.

It's a hot-button issue, just like flag burning. Nobody ever really cared about flag burning.

By the way, your "No, stop" was rude and unnecessary, and your comment would have been stronger without it.

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

#877

Post by xdennis »

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.

> Regardless of the original contract, it's entirely appropriate for a vendor to tell the customer how to use any materials.

Utter nonsense. When the US built the Blackbird, it could only use titanium because of the heat involved in traveling at that speed. But they didn't have enough titanium in the US. So the the US created front companies to purchase titanium from the Soviet Union.

Do you think the US should have informed the Soviet Union what it wanted to do with the metal?

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

#878

Post by Kim_Bruning »

txrx0000 wrote: post #697

This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force. Open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run a 100% transparent organization so that there's nothing to take from you. Level the playing field for good and bad actors alike, otherwise the bad actors will get their hands on it while everyone else is left behind. S…

This is why OpenClaw (and other claw frameworks) ar so interesting. I'm not saying the current implementation is great, mind. But it's a possible safe-er scenario, where the ecosystem is already occupied.

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

#879

Post by lesuorac »

anigbrowl wrote: post #794
nelox wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps for ethical reasons but a stated reason by Anthrophic is technical. "But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons."

With the other stated reason being legal. "To the extent that such surveillance is currently legal, this is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI."

I don't think we should lessen Anthrophic's stance from technical/legal to ethical. Just as we shouldn't describe what the department of war is doing as "not renewing a contract".

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

#880

Post by baby_souffle »

bigtex88 wrote: post #873
rootusrootus wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is currently an autocracy/idiocracy. A staggeringly corrupt, busted nation. We are in a bad place right now, that is for certain. > Soon enough the midterms will be effectively cancelled. That would be a pretty big leap from where we are. I think it is important to pay attention, and very important to vote, but there is not a particularly plausible route to cancelling any elections. But they can certainly ma…

They won't outright cancel the elections but they will do things like send ICE to contested districts to harass law-abiding voters; pressure states to remove people from voter rolls and make it difficult if not impossible for them to re-register in time to be able to vote; and otherwise just scream fraud and cheating and stolen when they lose the House.

Exactly this.

Belarus has elections, technically. Are they legitimate and free from coercion? Not really…

Post reply on HN