Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is making effective weapons evil?
"You need me on that wall!"
This guy sounds like he ordered a code red.
I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
881–890 of 1001 posts
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#882It's fascinating to me that this decision was set for 5 pm ET on a friday, and I think it may be more responsible to set big deadlines like this for a time while the stock market is open. I imagine this will negatively impact confidence in the US economy at large, and stock markets will reflect that. But since the market is closed, we'll have to wait till Monday, with the tension/anticipation of a drop building. If t…
It's extremely common to release negative news on Friday after the markets close. It happens nearly every Friday.
Is there a reason that is done, beyond just tradition? I’m genuinely very curious whether there’s a positive, negative, or negligible impact on economic decision making
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#883lol
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#884The 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…
| then they went back and said no, you need to remove those safeguards to which Anthropic is (rightly so) saying no.
So one thing to call out here is that the assumption that DoW is working on specifically these use cases is not bullet proof. They simply may not want to share with anthropic exactly what they are working on for natsec issues. /we can't tell you/ could violate the terms.
It is also dumb that DoW accepted these terms in the first place.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#885Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what I'm hearing is, having trampled every other amendment in the Bill of Rights, the Trump administration is now turning its sights to the Third.
>No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. We are not talking about soldiers living in Anthropic's offices. We are talking about an office employee being able to generate a PowerPoint about autonomous weapon systems.
Addressed elsewhere in the thread. I could easily envision a Supreme Court decision based on reasoning such as, "Clearly the intent of the framers was that American citizens should not be forced to provide goods or services to the military against their will."
Dumber stretches of logic have certainly emerged from SCOTUS. If Wickard v. Filburn makes sense to them, so could this.
Maybe not from the present bench, but perhaps from a hypothetically less-partisan one.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#886Pathetic posturing. Also, does this read ECACTLY like an Andor script to anybody else!?
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#887Earlier 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?
In a sane world we wouldn't be, but Hegseth has been rather insistent for some reason.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#888The real question: did he have Claude write this for him?
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#889Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s the whole idea. Anthropic didn’t ask for much so that they would look like the reasonable party.
Anthropic had these conditions in their contract from the very beginning, in contracts negotiated under Biden. It is their actual principled stance, not maneuvering.
Yes, true, but some people online advocate for taking a harder line than was in their contract.
Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk
#890Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, if you are a federal contractor, the designation means the DoD can force you to certify that Anthropic tech is not used in the fulfillment of your government work. Because it's just a DoD designation, and an executive order and not added to the NDAA, you can still use Claude for non-government (federal) touching work. So using Claude Code to write software for the DoD is now a no go, you'd be in breach of…
That doesn’t seem to match up with the original tweet though - it sounds a heck of a lot stronger: > Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic Emphasis mine. And I’m looking at news organizations that presumably have staffs of legal analysts pouring over this stuff, and they also seem to be saying th…
Ok Looking at Anthropic’s response they agree with the parent response:
> Secretary Hegseth has implied this designation would restrict anyone who does business with the military from doing business with Anthropic. The Secretary does not have the statutory authority to back up this statement. Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-...
Looks like the NYT might have gotten it wrong…