3 ms·

All of this is kind of weird. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrq1vwe73po https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrq1vwe73po > the Pentagon official told the B

All of this is kind of weird. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrq1vwe73po https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrq1vwe73po > the Pentagon official told the BBC the current conflict between the agency and Anthropic is unrelated to the use of autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. > The official added that the Pentagon would simultaneously label Anthropic as a supply chain risk. *Supply chain risk*? The BBC article seems to imply that the government wants to audit Anthropic. This, coming at the same time those "distillation" claims were published, is all incredibly suspicious.

hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
Supply chain risk is a very specific designation, meaning not only would Anthropic lose Pentagon contracts, but no other company with Pentagon contracts would be allowed to use them either. It would have the effect of being a near industry-wide blackballing of Anthropic given all the major companies that have contracts with the DoD.
- gaigalas 8mo ago
  Yes. Incredible, isn't it? I'm curious at what would make the government do that.
  - thephyber 8mo ago
    _The Art of the Deal_. The US federal government is no longer a good faith actor acting on behalf of American citizens and following US law, but now an autonomous corporation aiming to “get the best deal” via maximum leverage.
    - gaigalas 8mo ago
      Dario Amodei used almost every single public interview he gave to press on the "Protect America, it's a matter of national security. Ban Chinese exports, etc". He was clearly dancing to the DoD tune, like he REALLY wanted a DoD contract, which he eventually got. But that's not the point. I'm talking about how coincidental all of this is with the recent Anthropic blunder with the distillation thing. That is my main point you dismissed.
  - pjc50 8mo ago
    They thought it would work, and it did?
  - AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
    I can think of at least one possibility - confidentiality failure. If the customer data was not contained - especially if it was DoD data - that would be reason to do such a thing.
thephyber 8mo ago
All of the coverage of this is about the negotiation points of Anthropic vs Pentagon. Anthropic doesn’t want their software used for certain purposes, so they maintain approval/denial of projects and actions. I suspect the Pentagon doesn’t want limitations AND they dislike paying for software/service which can be withheld from them if they are found to be skirting the contractual terms. And THAT is why the Pentagon is using maximum leverage (threatening Anthropic as a supply chain risk label).
- gaigalas 8mo ago
  > Anthropic doesn’t want their software used for certain purposes How do you know the government asked for a specific use case? As far as I know, the meeting was private and we don't know what they talked about. I haven't found a single official press release or verified statement that supports this. The verified statements I found are just about the government wanting unrestricted access. That alone is not enough to imply "no guardrails". As I mentioned before, it could be just for auditing (especially in the light of current events involving distilling of the models). I think it's an extraordinary coincidence that this happened soon after the distillation thing. And I don't know what it means if it's not a coincidence.

hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago

Supply chain risk is a very specific designation, meaning not only would Anthropic lose Pentagon contracts, but no other company with Pentagon contracts would be allowed to use them either. It would have the effect of being a near industry-wide blackballing of Anthropic given all the major companies that have contracts with the DoD.

gaigalas 8mo ago
Yes. Incredible, isn't it? I'm curious at what would make the government do that.
- thephyber 8mo ago
  _The Art of the Deal_. The US federal government is no longer a good faith actor acting on behalf of American citizens and following US law, but now an autonomous corporation aiming to “get the best deal” via maximum leverage.
  - gaigalas 8mo ago
    Dario Amodei used almost every single public interview he gave to press on the "Protect America, it's a matter of national security. Ban Chinese exports, etc". He was clearly dancing to the DoD tune, like he REALLY wanted a DoD contract, which he eventually got. But that's not the point. I'm talking about how coincidental all of this is with the recent Anthropic blunder with the distillation thing. That is my main point you dismissed.
- pjc50 8mo ago
  They thought it would work, and it did?
- AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
  I can think of at least one possibility - confidentiality failure. If the customer data was not contained - especially if it was DoD data - that would be reason to do such a thing.

thephyber 8mo ago

All of the coverage of this is about the negotiation points of Anthropic vs Pentagon. Anthropic doesn’t want their software used for certain purposes, so they maintain approval/denial of projects and actions. I suspect the Pentagon doesn’t want limitations AND they dislike paying for software/service which can be withheld from them if they are found to be skirting the contractual terms. And THAT is why the Pentagon is using maximum leverage (threatening Anthropic as a supply chain risk label).

gaigalas 8mo ago
> Anthropic doesn’t want their software used for certain purposes How do you know the government asked for a specific use case? As far as I know, the meeting was private and we don't know what they talked about. I haven't found a single official press release or verified statement that supports this. The verified statements I found are just about the government wanting unrestricted access. That alone is not enough to imply "no guardrails". As I mentioned before, it could be just for auditing (especially in the light of current events involving distilling of the models). I think it's an extraordinary coincidence that this happened soon after the distillation thing. And I don't know what it means if it's not a coincidence.