8 ms·

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened

by jjcm 8mo ago

This is the strongest statement in the post: > They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security. This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. I really like Anthropic's approach here, which is to in turn state that they're happy to help the Governemnt move off of Anthropic. It's a messaging ploy for sure, but it puts the ball in the current administration's court.

intermerda 8mo ago
[flagged]
- grosswait 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - djeastm 8mo ago
    >It’s already close to losing all meaning. On the contrary, seeing it take hold before our very eyes gives it more meaning than it ever had in the pages of the history books.
    - grosswait 8mo ago
      On the contrary, claiming it’s taking hold and labeling everything fascism doesn’t make it so
  - xpe 8mo ago
    There is a difference between a politician making a contradictory statement and the largest agency in the United States using probably unconstitutional pressure tactics against a business.
- SilverElfin 8mo ago
  [flagged]
quietbritishjim 8mo ago
Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.
- ray_v 8mo ago
  The analogy doesn't work here ... In your scenario they are ok with using the bolt as long as the Chinese company promises to remove deliberate defects - which is of course absurd ... AND contradictory.
- gipp 8mo ago
  "Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.
- NewsaHackO 8mo ago
  No, in your example, if the dodgy Chinese company is a supply chain risk due to sabotage, why would they invoke an act to force production of the bolts from the same company for use for national defense preparedness, which would be clearly a national security risk?
  - snickerbockers 8mo ago
    The OP specifically mentions this in the context of "systems" (a vague, poorly-defined term) and "classified networks" in which Anthropic products are already present. Without more details on what "systems" these are or the terms of the contracts under which these were produced it's difficult to make a definitive judgement, but broadly speaking it's not a good thing if the government is relying on a product which Anthropic has designed to arbitrarily refuse orders by its own judgement. I really don't see how anybody could think a private defense contractor should be entitled to countermand the military by leveraging the control it has over products it has already sold. Maybe the terms of their contract entitled them to some discretion over what orders the product will carry out, but there's no such claim in the OP.
calvinmorrison 8mo ago
More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.
- toomuchtodo 8mo ago
  Note that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.
  - RobotToaster 8mo ago
    Paper tigers
  - gclawes 8mo ago
    The government should be entitled to any lawful use of a product they purchase, not uses dictated solely by the provider. It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is, it's not up to these companies to dictate.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
      Providers are free who they choose to do business with, or not do business with. Are you arguing that the government should be able to compel a provider to allow their use when it’s well documented the government does not respect nor adhere to the rule of law? I think you misunderstand commerce and contract law.
      - alex43578 8mo ago
        Providers are bound by plenty of laws that alter how they do business or who they do business with. You can’t say “no disabled people at your business”. Hell, you can’t even say “no fake service animals at my restaurant”. Many in America also think you can’t say no girls in the Boy Scouts, or no men in a women’s locker room.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
gclawes 8mo ago
> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- lucaslazarus 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- theptip 8mo ago
  Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.
  - grosswait 8mo ago
    Every company is free to state their terms of use, but not all have been upheld when challenged
    - otterley 8mo ago
      What’s your angle here? I’m genuinely curious. If the government told you that you had to muck out portable bathrooms with your bare hands even if you didn’t want to, wouldn’t you find that objectionable?
      - alex43578 8mo ago
        I’m sure they would find it objectionable, just like how many reacted negatively to the draft, but it was imposed anyways. The government should have far less control and power over individuals and businesses than it currently does.
      - lynx97 8mo ago
        Well, the rates are different from country to country, but everyone knows taxes. I really don't want to give away almost 40% of my income... Does anyone care what I want or like?
panarky 8mo ago
Does the Defense Production Act force employees to continue working at Anthropic?
- nerdsniper 8mo ago
  No. It really only binds the corporation, but it does hold the executives/directors personally responsible for compliance so they’d be under a lot of pressure to figure out how to fix enough leaks in the ship to keep it afloat. Any individual director/executive could quit with little issue, but if they all did in a way that compromised the corporations ability to function, the courts could potentially utilize injunctions/fines/jail time to compel compliance from corporate leaders. Also there’s probably a way to abuse the Taft-Hawley act beyond current recognition to force the employees to stay by designating any en-masse quitting to be a “strike / walk off / collective action”. The consequences to the individuals for this is unclear - the act really focuses on punishing the union rather than the employees. It would take some very creative maneuvering to do anything beyond denying unemployment benefits and telling the other big AI companies (Google / ChatGPT / xAI) to blacklist them. And probably using any semi-relevant three letter agency to make them regret their choice and deliver a chilling effect to anyone else thinking of leaving (FBI, DHS, IRS, SEC all come to mind). If the administration could figure out how to nationalize the company (like replace the leadership with ideologically-aligned directors who sell it to the government) then any now-federal-employees declared to be quitting as part of a collective action could be fined $1,000 per day or incarcerated for up to one year. It’s worth noting that this thesis would get an F grade at any accredited law school. Forcing people to work is a violation of the 13th amendment. But interpretations of the constitution and federal law are very dynamic these days so who knows.
  - tosapple 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - fluidcruft 8mo ago
    Maybe Anthropic could replace its employees with AI. Unlikely the admin is going to enjoy setting precedent that employees are protected against being replaced by AI.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. I doubt Trump is more than cursorily aware. Maybe Miller got in the idiot’s ear, who knows.
- cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
  It definitely has the aroma of either Bannon or Miller or both.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 8mo ago
    Believe it or not Steve Bannon is quite concerned about AI development: >Over on Steve Bannon's show, War Room -- the influential podcast that's emerged as the tip of the spear of the MAGA movement -- Trump's longtime ally unloaded on the efforts behind accelerating AI, calling it likely "the most dangerous technology in the history of mankind." >... >"You have more restrictions on starting a nail salon on Capitol Hill or to have your hair braided, then you have on the most dangerous technologies in the history of mankind," Bannon told his listeners. https://abcnews.com/US/inside-magas-growing-fight-stop-trumps-ai-revolution/story?id=127824351 https://abcnews.com/US/inside-magas-growing-fight-stop-trump...
    - cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
      Him being "concerned" about it doesn't mean he doesn't want to bring Anthropic to heal.
- xpe 8mo ago
  > It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. Care to convert this into a prediction?: are you predicting Hegseth will back down? > I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. ... what does this mean to you? What comes next? As SecDef/SecWar, Hegseth is the head of the Pentagon. He's pushing for this. Something like 2+ million people are under his authority. Do you think they will push back? Stonewall? One can view Hegseth as unqualified, even a walking publicity stunt while also taking his power seriously.
mandeepj 8mo ago
First of all, there's no such thing as "Department of War". A department name change is legal/binding only after it's approved by the Senate. Senator Kelly is still calling it DoD (Department of Defense). > Mass domestic surveillance. Since when has DoD started getting involved with the internal affairs of the country? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
- Lerc 8mo ago
  It's whatever what the people who have the power want to call it. What is written on a piece of paper is irrelevant if it is not acted upon. If the rename gets struck down then they don't have the power. If it doesn't they have the power. There are many dictatorships that built their power in the face of people claiming that they can't do what they planned because it was illegal. Until they did it anyway.
  - darkerside 8mo ago
    This is fascism
    - Lerc 8mo ago
      I don't think many are doubting that. I'm not talking about the way things should be. I'm talking about the way they are.
      - darkerside 8mo ago
        This is normalization of fascism
        zombot 8mo ago
        Which is what naturally happens when fascists are in power.
  - jazzyjackson 8mo ago
egorfine 8mo ago
> two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security. They are only contradictory if you think about it.
- ithkuil 8mo ago
  Nothing is contradictory if you don't think

by jjcm 8mo ago

intermerda 8mo ago

[flagged]

grosswait 8mo ago
[flagged]
- djeastm 8mo ago
  >It’s already close to losing all meaning. On the contrary, seeing it take hold before our very eyes gives it more meaning than it ever had in the pages of the history books.
  - grosswait 8mo ago
    On the contrary, claiming it’s taking hold and labeling everything fascism doesn’t make it so
- xpe 8mo ago
  There is a difference between a politician making a contradictory statement and the largest agency in the United States using probably unconstitutional pressure tactics against a business.
SilverElfin 8mo ago
[flagged]

quietbritishjim 8mo ago

Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.

ray_v 8mo ago
The analogy doesn't work here ... In your scenario they are ok with using the bolt as long as the Chinese company promises to remove deliberate defects - which is of course absurd ... AND contradictory.
gipp 8mo ago
"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.
NewsaHackO 8mo ago
No, in your example, if the dodgy Chinese company is a supply chain risk due to sabotage, why would they invoke an act to force production of the bolts from the same company for use for national defense preparedness, which would be clearly a national security risk?
- snickerbockers 8mo ago
  The OP specifically mentions this in the context of "systems" (a vague, poorly-defined term) and "classified networks" in which Anthropic products are already present. Without more details on what "systems" these are or the terms of the contracts under which these were produced it's difficult to make a definitive judgement, but broadly speaking it's not a good thing if the government is relying on a product which Anthropic has designed to arbitrarily refuse orders by its own judgement. I really don't see how anybody could think a private defense contractor should be entitled to countermand the military by leveraging the control it has over products it has already sold. Maybe the terms of their contract entitled them to some discretion over what orders the product will carry out, but there's no such claim in the OP.

calvinmorrison 8mo ago

More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.

toomuchtodo 8mo ago
Note that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.
- RobotToaster 8mo ago
  Paper tigers
- gclawes 8mo ago
  The government should be entitled to any lawful use of a product they purchase, not uses dictated solely by the provider. It's up to courts to decide what lawful use is, it's not up to these companies to dictate.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
    Providers are free who they choose to do business with, or not do business with. Are you arguing that the government should be able to compel a provider to allow their use when it’s well documented the government does not respect nor adhere to the rule of law? I think you misunderstand commerce and contract law.
    - alex43578 8mo ago
      Providers are bound by plenty of laws that alter how they do business or who they do business with. You can’t say “no disabled people at your business”. Hell, you can’t even say “no fake service animals at my restaurant”. Many in America also think you can’t say no girls in the Boy Scouts, or no men in a women’s locker room.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

gclawes 8mo ago

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
lucaslazarus 8mo ago
[flagged]
theptip 8mo ago
Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.
- grosswait 8mo ago
  Every company is free to state their terms of use, but not all have been upheld when challenged
  - otterley 8mo ago
    What’s your angle here? I’m genuinely curious. If the government told you that you had to muck out portable bathrooms with your bare hands even if you didn’t want to, wouldn’t you find that objectionable?
    - alex43578 8mo ago
      I’m sure they would find it objectionable, just like how many reacted negatively to the draft, but it was imposed anyways. The government should have far less control and power over individuals and businesses than it currently does.
    - lynx97 8mo ago
      Well, the rates are different from country to country, but everyone knows taxes. I really don't want to give away almost 40% of my income... Does anyone care what I want or like?

panarky 8mo ago

Does the Defense Production Act force employees to continue working at Anthropic?

nerdsniper 8mo ago
No. It really only binds the corporation, but it does hold the executives/directors personally responsible for compliance so they’d be under a lot of pressure to figure out how to fix enough leaks in the ship to keep it afloat. Any individual director/executive could quit with little issue, but if they all did in a way that compromised the corporations ability to function, the courts could potentially utilize injunctions/fines/jail time to compel compliance from corporate leaders. Also there’s probably a way to abuse the Taft-Hawley act beyond current recognition to force the employees to stay by designating any en-masse quitting to be a “strike / walk off / collective action”. The consequences to the individuals for this is unclear - the act really focuses on punishing the union rather than the employees. It would take some very creative maneuvering to do anything beyond denying unemployment benefits and telling the other big AI companies (Google / ChatGPT / xAI) to blacklist them. And probably using any semi-relevant three letter agency to make them regret their choice and deliver a chilling effect to anyone else thinking of leaving (FBI, DHS, IRS, SEC all come to mind). If the administration could figure out how to nationalize the company (like replace the leadership with ideologically-aligned directors who sell it to the government) then any now-federal-employees declared to be quitting as part of a collective action could be fined $1,000 per day or incarcerated for up to one year. It’s worth noting that this thesis would get an F grade at any accredited law school. Forcing people to work is a violation of the 13th amendment. But interpretations of the constitution and federal law are very dynamic these days so who knows.
- tosapple 8mo ago
  [dead]
- fluidcruft 8mo ago
  Maybe Anthropic could replace its employees with AI. Unlikely the admin is going to enjoy setting precedent that employees are protected against being replaced by AI.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. I doubt Trump is more than cursorily aware. Maybe Miller got in the idiot’s ear, who knows.

cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
It definitely has the aroma of either Bannon or Miller or both.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 8mo ago
  Believe it or not Steve Bannon is quite concerned about AI development: >Over on Steve Bannon's show, War Room -- the influential podcast that's emerged as the tip of the spear of the MAGA movement -- Trump's longtime ally unloaded on the efforts behind accelerating AI, calling it likely "the most dangerous technology in the history of mankind." >... >"You have more restrictions on starting a nail salon on Capitol Hill or to have your hair braided, then you have on the most dangerous technologies in the history of mankind," Bannon told his listeners. https://abcnews.com/US/inside-magas-growing-fight-stop-trumps-ai-revolution/story?id=127824351 https://abcnews.com/US/inside-magas-growing-fight-stop-trump...
  - cmrdporcupine 8mo ago
    Him being "concerned" about it doesn't mean he doesn't want to bring Anthropic to heal.
xpe 8mo ago
> It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. Care to convert this into a prediction?: are you predicting Hegseth will back down? > I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. ... what does this mean to you? What comes next? As SecDef/SecWar, Hegseth is the head of the Pentagon. He's pushing for this. Something like 2+ million people are under his authority. Do you think they will push back? Stonewall? One can view Hegseth as unqualified, even a walking publicity stunt while also taking his power seriously.

mandeepj 8mo ago

First of all, there's no such thing as "Department of War". A department name change is legal/binding only after it's approved by the Senate. Senator Kelly is still calling it DoD (Department of Defense). > Mass domestic surveillance. Since when has DoD started getting involved with the internal affairs of the country? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

Lerc 8mo ago
It's whatever what the people who have the power want to call it. What is written on a piece of paper is irrelevant if it is not acted upon. If the rename gets struck down then they don't have the power. If it doesn't they have the power. There are many dictatorships that built their power in the face of people claiming that they can't do what they planned because it was illegal. Until they did it anyway.
- darkerside 8mo ago
  This is fascism
  - Lerc 8mo ago
    I don't think many are doubting that. I'm not talking about the way things should be. I'm talking about the way they are.
    - darkerside 8mo ago
      This is normalization of fascism
      - zombot 8mo ago
        Which is what naturally happens when fascists are in power.
- jazzyjackson 8mo ago

egorfine 8mo ago

> two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security. They are only contradictory if you think about it.

ithkuil 8mo ago
Nothing is contradictory if you don't think