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

Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 319 posts

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#91

Post by hax0ron3 »

I am a political moderate who dislikes both the Democrats and Republicans. I think that I have been fair to the Trump administration in the past, including occasionally defending them from some of the less reality-based accusations against them.

I canceled my ChatGPT subscription a couple of days ago. In my opinion the Trump administration has become far too much of an "imperial Presidency" in its acts of war and its attempts to bully companies. It is also corrupt on a massive scale. I distrust anyone who thinks "yes, I'd like to work with this administration".

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#92

Post by infogulch »

The US Military's demand that the product they purchase is able to be used for all lawful purposes seems pretty reasonable, and is really the only valid line to draw. Forcing one's own ethics onto the military's use of your product is nonsensical on its face.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#94

Post by m_ke »

hypeatei wrote: post #80
m_ke wrote: post #2

We can all thank the VCs and CEOs who fully embraced and enabled this administration

And 32% of eligible voters that thought Kamala would've been worse.

Don't blame the voters, they didn't get to pick her and did not run her campaign.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#95

Post by [deleted] »

keithnz wrote: post #84
Herring wrote: post #33

Since the end of WW2, and especially since the end of the Cold War, Democratic administrations have presided over significantly higher job growth than Republican administrations. https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...

this isn't on topic at all

[deleted]

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#96

Post by gAI »

cakealert wrote: post #76
kelnos wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not a military asset? It's a privately-owned asset.

> Because it's not a military asset? It's a privately-owned asset. Are you under the impression that the military is submitting Anthropic API calls? Whatever model the military is using is as much of an asset as the F35 they purchased. Depending on their agreements, you could argue it's a rented asset. Doesn't change any calculus.

status.claude.com shows the uptime for the government cloud service. It's running in-part on an AWS server.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#97

Post by stirlo »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #82

Writing out a thought I had, someone please critique my reasoning here... What if Anthropic just shrugged, dissolved the company and open-sourced all of the Opus weights? Could this harm OpenAI and advance AI in a reasonable way? Look I know it's an insane idea. I'm just curious what the most unhinged response to this might be.

There’s plenty of markets outside the pentagon to sell to.

Far more likely is they spin up a defence focused subsidiary with slightly different policies if they really want to sell to them.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#98

Post by teachrdan »

keithnz wrote: post #84
Herring wrote: post #33

Since the end of WW2, and especially since the end of the Cold War, Democratic administrations have presided over significantly higher job growth than Republican administrations. https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...

this isn't on topic at all

I think the implication is that democratic presidents are less likely to do dumb shit like this, which harms the economy.

Re: Pentagon formally labels Anthropic supply-chain risk

#99

Post by ainiriand »

lePask wrote: post #86
oompydoompy74 wrote: post #16

Exported all my chats and deleted my ChatGPT account yesterday. The current administration not liking you is the strongest signal I could possibly have to go all in on a particular company.

[dead]

Work is not good per-se.
Post reply on HN