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

Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#91

Post by dgfitz »

axus wrote: post #59
bri3d wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole article is weird to me. This reads to me like: * Some employee somewhere wanted to click the shiny Claude button in the AWS FedRamp marketplace * Whatever USG legal team were involved said "that domestic surveillance clause doesn't work for us" and tried to redline it. * Anthropic rejected the redline. * Someone got mad and went to Semafor. It's unclear that this has even really escalated prior to the arti…

A classic: THIS SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAILSAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR…

Look up DoD (DoW?) 882 and LOR ratings. This is a fancy way of saying “Java can’t do that because we haven’t certified a toolchain for it”

And for bonus points, go find the last certified compilers for LOR1 rating that follow 882 guidelines.

Now you’ve scratched the surface of safety-critical software. Actually writing it is a blast. I think most web developers would weep in frustration. “Wait, I can’t allocate memory that way? Or that way? Or in this way not at all?! There’s no framework?! You mean I need to do all this to verify a button click??!!”

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#92

Post by gowld »

dannyisaphantom wrote: post #52
matula wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are (or at least WERE) entire divisions dedicated to reading every letter of the contract and terms of service, and usually creating 20 page documents seeking clarification for a specific phrase. They absolutely know what they're getting into.

Can confirm these teams are still around. There is now an additional "SME review group" that must comb through any and all AI-related issues that were flagged, sends it back down for edits and must give final approval for before docs are sent over to provider for response. Turnaround has gotten much slower (relatively)

Or you can use personal accounts to bypass red tape for government business.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#93

Post by gowld »

jdminhbg wrote: post #24
impossiblefork wrote: post #12

Very strange writing from semafor.com >For instance, an agency could pay for a subscription or negotiate a pay-per-use contract with an AI provider, only to find out that it is prohibited from using the AI model in certain ways, limiting its value. This is of course quite false. They of course know the restriction when they sign the contract.

Are you sure that every restriction that’s in the model is also spelled out in the contract? If they add new ones, do they update the contract?

The contact's restriction is on the usage of the model, not the behavior of the model.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#94

Post by tene80i »

baggy_trough wrote: post #61
tene80i wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part?

I should think that it was very obvious that America does not have a dictatorial government; this is hyperbole.

No need for that. I was just asking someone to clarify what they were saying.

Regardless of what you think about the government, that wasn’t a statement in the above. The statement was about tech companies. So it wasn’t clear.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#95

Post by gowld »

> The policy doesn’t specifically define what it means by “domestic surveillance” in a law enforcement context and appears to be using the term broadly, creating room for interpretation.

> Other AI model providers also list restrictions on surveillance, but offer more specific examples and often have carveouts for law enforcement activities. OpenAI’s policy, for instance, prohibits “unauthorized monitoring of individuals,” implying consent for legal monitoring by law enforcement.

This is unintentionally (for the author) hilarious. It's a blatant misinterpretation of the language, while complimenting the clarity of the lanuage. Who "authorizes" "monitoring of individuals"? If an executive agency monitors an individual in violation of a court order, is that "authorized" ?

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#96

Post by gowld »

owenthejumper wrote: post #33

This feels like a hit piece by semafor. A lot of the information in there is purely false. For example, Microsoft's AI Agreemeent says (prohibits): "...cannot use...For ongoing surveillance or real-time or near real-time identification or persistent tracking of the individual using any of their personal data, including biometric data, without the individual’s valid consent."

Semafor is Ben Smith's blog, trying to imitate a reputable newspaper like Financial Times.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#97

Post by astrange »

chrsw wrote: post #44
jimbo808 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's startling how few are willing to. I'm rooting for them.

Can we trust this though? “Cooperate with us and we’ll leak fake stories about how frustrated we are with you as cover”. And I’m not singling out Anthropic. None of these companies or governments (i.e. people) can be trusted at face value.

They don't do that. They're not capable of cooperating with anyone, it's maximum punishment all the time. It's unclear if they can keep secrets either.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#98

Post by astrange »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #39
toxik wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic is pretty clearly using the Häagen-Dasz approach here, call yourself Anthropic and your product Claude so you seem French. Why?

According to Claude, it’s named after Claude Shannon, who was American.

But it might also be the albino alligator in the California Academy of Sciences in SF.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#99

Post by curt15 »

otterley wrote: post #85
arrozconcosas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be true that the constitution is not working as intended, AND the US is a far cry from a country like Russian in terms of it operating as a constitutional republic / democracy. It is not subjective to say the US is more of a democratic country than Russia.

I think Russia was being used as an extreme example. It wasn't being lauded as a model nation, far from it.

Maybe not yet, but the current US president has lauded authoritarian Hungary as a model for the US.

Re: Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use

#100

Post by curt15 »

baggy_trough wrote: post #61
tene80i wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part?

I should think that it was very obvious that America does not have a dictatorial government; this is hyperbole.

Does threatening to prosecute office supply store workers unless they print certain flyers count as the behavior of a dictator? That doesn't sound like the behavior of a government respecting the First Amendment.
Post reply on HN