5 ms·

Article doesn’t demonstrate a good understanding of DoW’s relationship with contractors. Anthropic wanted those sweet, sweet, taxpayer dollars—well, this is wha

Article doesn’t demonstrate a good understanding of DoW’s relationship with contractors. Anthropic wanted those sweet, sweet, taxpayer dollars—well, this is what happens when you make a Faustian bargain. > One option is to invoke the Defense Production Act. . . > Another threat would be to declare Anthropic to be a supply chain risk. . . The first is a wrist-slap that still gets the government what they want; the second is an existential threat to Anthropic. Their main partners are all “dogs of the military”. Microsoft, Intuit, NVIDIA: all government contractors. I can’t find one company that they have a working relationship with that doesn’t hold at least one govt contract. The idea that Claude could alignment fake its way out of a change in contractual terms is silly. The DoW has all sorts of legal and administrative tools it can choose to leverage against contractors that fail to perform. Usually it doesn’t, because of a “norm” that says the private defense sector runs more smoothly when the government doesn’t try to micromanage it. Remind me again how good this administration is at upholding norms?

bpodgursky 7mo ago
The DoD can invoke the DPA on any company it wants. Not really sure how this becomes Anthropic's fault.
- TimorousBestie 7mo ago
  They knew what they were signing on to when they sought DoW funding. I guarantee Dario was briefed on the risks associated with high-profile govt contracting.
  - intrasight 7mo ago
    Even if not briefed, such a smart person surely knows that he owe's his stash of gold to the willingness of others to spill their blood to protect it. Those willing to spill their blood have historically always had a claim on your gold.
cogman10 7mo ago
> Remind me again how good this administration is at upholding norms? When it comes to killing and spying on people with flimsy justifications that's a pretty bipartisan norm. Hell, Anthropic isn't even saying they won't help the DoW do just that, they just want to make sure there's a human in the loop. The "USA Freedom Act" [1], which made most of the Patriot act permanent, had bipartisan support. I'm all for reversing the continual ramp up of the police state and the industrial military complex. We need to recognize, however, that it's being funded and pushed by both parties. Generally playing on fears of the scary other. (Muslim terrorists in 00s, Mexicans today). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act
- TimorousBestie 7mo ago
  You’ve egregiously misread me. I spelled out the norm that the DoW would be violating if they decided to make good on their threats. > Usually it doesn’t, because of a “norm” that says the private defense sector runs more smoothly when the government doesn’t try to micromanage it. My comment has nothing to do with Anthropic’s “moral” or “ethical” stance. I also don’t see the point in both-siding this. The situation at hand is before Hegseth and Trump. I can’t even remember Biden’s SecDef’s name.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    My apologies, that wasn't my intent. > I also don’t see the point in both-siding this. The situation at hand is before Hegseth and Trump. I can’t even remember Biden’s SecDef’s name. To me, the moral and ethical problem is a bigger issue than the norms problem. There's a distinction without a difference between Hegseth doing this vs the Dems agreeing with Anthropic's demands and keeping a human in the loop on a massive spy and killing network. In some ways, stepping out of the norms and making a big news story is preferable to an unknown cabinet member just signing a business as usual agreement which erodes liberties. At least we know about it. That's why I brought it up. It's great that Anthropic wants some safeguards, but ultimately the bigger problem is that AI with or without humans, significantly expands that ability of our military to murder and our spy agencies to spy.
kristjansson 7mo ago
> Anthropic wanted those sweet, sweet, taxpayer dollars The sold services to a willing counterparty at mutually agreed upon terms. And now the other side of that deal has recalled that they're Twelve and You're Not My Real Mom You Can't Tell Me What To Do, and so wishes they had agreed to different terms and is throwing a tantrum to attempt to force a change. And that's Anthropic's fault? That's a risk they should have predicted?
- TimorousBestie 7mo ago
  > The sold services to a willing counterparty at mutually agreed upon terms. Yeah, and the legal environment that contract was written in, which both parties were aware of during negotiation, defines the means by which those terms can be changed. > And that's Anthropic's fault? That's a risk they should have predicted? It is deeply funny to me to imagine that an AI company doing inference at an unprecedented scale could not see this coming. Go ask Claude how usgov should act if a contractor preemptively refuses to deliver. What are the top five tools they could use to demand compliance?
  - kristjansson 7mo ago
    > preemptively refuses to deliver See this is your confusion. They're not refusing to deliver, they're happy to provide the services agreed to at the rate negotiated. What they're refusing is a change in the terms. If you contract me to build you a building, and I agree with a stipulation that it won't be used as a slaughterhouse (and that you'll write that into the deed), you can't compel me to continue building if you change your mind on that point six months in. You either break the contract subject to agreed terms, renegotiate to remove that clause, or stop breaching the contract. Of all American claims to exceptionalism, one that rings closest to true is that the the people AND the government are all bound by the rule of law. Contracting with the government is no different than contracting with any other party. Your point seems to be "but it's the government clearly they can do whatever they want lol" viz. DPA, Supply-Chain risk, etc. You're right that they have those powers. But accepting/asserting that the capricious, vengeful, use of those extraordinary powers should be an anticipated, normal feature of contracting with the government runs counter to what should be among our highest shared values. We might as well jump directly to the authoritarian logic 'they have the army, they can compel anything they want for $0, so just give them what they ask'. Furthermore, one presumes Anthropic did see this coming, given no more evidence than that this is playing out in a giant public fracas making their values clear to all their possible customers the world over, instead of over a tense email thread between the assistant to the sub-under-deputy secretary for AI procurement and a half-dozen lawyers in SF. (addenda: you're going to say we've used the DPA a bunch. I would argue that vanishingly few instances have compelled private enterprise to act in direct opposition to their own interests; an even in those cases they were just being asked to lose money (meatpackers, PG&E suppliers, ...))
PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
There is no "DoW". Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, are named by Congress. Just because the current administration wants to use a different name means nothing ... unless everyone just complies in advance. Will Congress actually rename it? Hard to say, but it doesn't seem very likely.
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  "Defense" is a harmful euphemism that misleads the American public, so in this case I'm happy to humor the admins decision.
  - thejohnconway 7mo ago
    Indeed, “defence” so obviously an Orwellian term for these departments, I’m very much in favour of the change.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
    I agree that, given the actual history of the US military and foreign policy, it is a harmful and misleading euphimism. It is also, however, the official name of the department, as determined by the US Congress who are empowered to determine such names. In no case I am happy to humor this administration's decisions, especially when they are illegal/extra-legal/paralegal. If they wanted to actually rename the department, there's a clear process for that, and then perhaps we could "humor" that effort. As it stands, there's nothing here to humor, since there is no decision, only illegal aspiration.
- troyvit 7mo ago
  Getting off-topic here but it was irritating that Anthropic's original announcement called them the Department of War. What was that even signaling?
  - rhfjfkfkf 7mo ago
    The signalling in that post is about as clear as it can be. They’re aggressively signalling that they are cooperative, and that they are not being belligerent. They are using the preferred language and much of the framing that the US government would use, to make it as clear as possible what the key points of their disagreement are, by leaning into alignment on everything else This is textbook. People are reading this as some kind of confusing, inexplicable framing when it’s how any sensible person would write in their context. When you’re up against an authoritarian regime, that’s willing to abuse all the levers of power against you, you very carefully pick your fights and don’t give them any reason to complain about anything that isn’t essential. Quibbling about the name of the department would be among the stupidest things I could possibly imagine. As it stands, I’m seeing lots of folks online who generally support the administration saying that Anthropic is correct here. If you gave them a bunch of stupid talking points about how anthropic is being disrespectful, you would lose those people. It doesn’t make sense, they’re obviously terrible people without a soul, but that’s reality.

bpodgursky 7mo ago

The DoD can invoke the DPA on any company it wants. Not really sure how this becomes Anthropic's fault.

TimorousBestie 7mo ago
They knew what they were signing on to when they sought DoW funding. I guarantee Dario was briefed on the risks associated with high-profile govt contracting.
- intrasight 7mo ago
  Even if not briefed, such a smart person surely knows that he owe's his stash of gold to the willingness of others to spill their blood to protect it. Those willing to spill their blood have historically always had a claim on your gold.

cogman10 7mo ago

> Remind me again how good this administration is at upholding norms? When it comes to killing and spying on people with flimsy justifications that's a pretty bipartisan norm. Hell, Anthropic isn't even saying they won't help the DoW do just that, they just want to make sure there's a human in the loop. The "USA Freedom Act" [1], which made most of the Patriot act permanent, had bipartisan support. I'm all for reversing the continual ramp up of the police state and the industrial military complex. We need to recognize, however, that it's being funded and pushed by both parties. Generally playing on fears of the scary other. (Muslim terrorists in 00s, Mexicans today). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

TimorousBestie 7mo ago
You’ve egregiously misread me. I spelled out the norm that the DoW would be violating if they decided to make good on their threats. > Usually it doesn’t, because of a “norm” that says the private defense sector runs more smoothly when the government doesn’t try to micromanage it. My comment has nothing to do with Anthropic’s “moral” or “ethical” stance. I also don’t see the point in both-siding this. The situation at hand is before Hegseth and Trump. I can’t even remember Biden’s SecDef’s name.
- cogman10 7mo ago
  My apologies, that wasn't my intent. > I also don’t see the point in both-siding this. The situation at hand is before Hegseth and Trump. I can’t even remember Biden’s SecDef’s name. To me, the moral and ethical problem is a bigger issue than the norms problem. There's a distinction without a difference between Hegseth doing this vs the Dems agreeing with Anthropic's demands and keeping a human in the loop on a massive spy and killing network. In some ways, stepping out of the norms and making a big news story is preferable to an unknown cabinet member just signing a business as usual agreement which erodes liberties. At least we know about it. That's why I brought it up. It's great that Anthropic wants some safeguards, but ultimately the bigger problem is that AI with or without humans, significantly expands that ability of our military to murder and our spy agencies to spy.

kristjansson 7mo ago

> Anthropic wanted those sweet, sweet, taxpayer dollars The sold services to a willing counterparty at mutually agreed upon terms. And now the other side of that deal has recalled that they're Twelve and You're Not My Real Mom You Can't Tell Me What To Do, and so wishes they had agreed to different terms and is throwing a tantrum to attempt to force a change. And that's Anthropic's fault? That's a risk they should have predicted?

TimorousBestie 7mo ago
> The sold services to a willing counterparty at mutually agreed upon terms. Yeah, and the legal environment that contract was written in, which both parties were aware of during negotiation, defines the means by which those terms can be changed. > And that's Anthropic's fault? That's a risk they should have predicted? It is deeply funny to me to imagine that an AI company doing inference at an unprecedented scale could not see this coming. Go ask Claude how usgov should act if a contractor preemptively refuses to deliver. What are the top five tools they could use to demand compliance?
- kristjansson 7mo ago
  > preemptively refuses to deliver See this is your confusion. They're not refusing to deliver, they're happy to provide the services agreed to at the rate negotiated. What they're refusing is a change in the terms. If you contract me to build you a building, and I agree with a stipulation that it won't be used as a slaughterhouse (and that you'll write that into the deed), you can't compel me to continue building if you change your mind on that point six months in. You either break the contract subject to agreed terms, renegotiate to remove that clause, or stop breaching the contract. Of all American claims to exceptionalism, one that rings closest to true is that the the people AND the government are all bound by the rule of law. Contracting with the government is no different than contracting with any other party. Your point seems to be "but it's the government clearly they can do whatever they want lol" viz. DPA, Supply-Chain risk, etc. You're right that they have those powers. But accepting/asserting that the capricious, vengeful, use of those extraordinary powers should be an anticipated, normal feature of contracting with the government runs counter to what should be among our highest shared values. We might as well jump directly to the authoritarian logic 'they have the army, they can compel anything they want for $0, so just give them what they ask'. Furthermore, one presumes Anthropic did see this coming, given no more evidence than that this is playing out in a giant public fracas making their values clear to all their possible customers the world over, instead of over a tense email thread between the assistant to the sub-under-deputy secretary for AI procurement and a half-dozen lawyers in SF. (addenda: you're going to say we've used the DPA a bunch. I would argue that vanishingly few instances have compelled private enterprise to act in direct opposition to their own interests; an even in those cases they were just being asked to lose money (meatpackers, PG&E suppliers, ...))

PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago

There is no "DoW". Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, are named by Congress. Just because the current administration wants to use a different name means nothing ... unless everyone just complies in advance. Will Congress actually rename it? Hard to say, but it doesn't seem very likely.

mikkupikku 7mo ago
"Defense" is a harmful euphemism that misleads the American public, so in this case I'm happy to humor the admins decision.
- thejohnconway 7mo ago
  Indeed, “defence” so obviously an Orwellian term for these departments, I’m very much in favour of the change.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
  I agree that, given the actual history of the US military and foreign policy, it is a harmful and misleading euphimism. It is also, however, the official name of the department, as determined by the US Congress who are empowered to determine such names. In no case I am happy to humor this administration's decisions, especially when they are illegal/extra-legal/paralegal. If they wanted to actually rename the department, there's a clear process for that, and then perhaps we could "humor" that effort. As it stands, there's nothing here to humor, since there is no decision, only illegal aspiration.
troyvit 7mo ago
Getting off-topic here but it was irritating that Anthropic's original announcement called them the Department of War. What was that even signaling?
- rhfjfkfkf 7mo ago
  The signalling in that post is about as clear as it can be. They’re aggressively signalling that they are cooperative, and that they are not being belligerent. They are using the preferred language and much of the framing that the US government would use, to make it as clear as possible what the key points of their disagreement are, by leaning into alignment on everything else This is textbook. People are reading this as some kind of confusing, inexplicable framing when it’s how any sensible person would write in their context. When you’re up against an authoritarian regime, that’s willing to abuse all the levers of power against you, you very carefully pick your fights and don’t give them any reason to complain about anything that isn’t essential. Quibbling about the name of the department would be among the stupidest things I could possibly imagine. As it stands, I’m seeing lots of folks online who generally support the administration saying that Anthropic is correct here. If you gave them a bunch of stupid talking points about how anthropic is being disrespectful, you would lose those people. It doesn’t make sense, they’re obviously terrible people without a soul, but that’s reality.