7 ms·

So they are such a risk to national security that no contractor that works with the federal government may use them, but they're going to keep using them for si

So they are such a risk to national security that no contractor that works with the federal government may use them, but they're going to keep using them for six more months? So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months?

wat10000 8mo ago
Don't make the mistake of thinking their words have meaning. They see a way to punish the company, they take it. Same thing with declaring a national emergency to impose tariffs. There's no supply chain risk, no national emergency, but that doesn't stop them.
tgma 8mo ago
[flagged]
- gip 8mo ago
  Or worse: train the AI to make decisions that align with the view of Anthropic management and not the elected government. Workout telling anyone. I’d agree it is a serious risk.
  - verdverm 8mo ago
    The government is supposed to represent the people and their will, not dictate The current government is deeply unpopular, it's only going to get worse for them.
  - cholantesh 8mo ago
    This rather implies that simply being elected casts a binding on officials that forces them to pursue popular will with their mandate.
- Analemma_ 8mo ago
  No, you are the one lying trying to get political gotchas here. There is no "trying to exert veto power" absolutely anywhere, Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. If they didn't like the terms, they didn't need to sign the contract.
  - tgma 8mo ago
    What are you suggesting here? US government breaching the contract already signed? I am not aware of that happening here. > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. It's called negotiation in business. I am sure both sides are clear-eyed on what the consequences were and Anthropic made a calculated bet (probably correctly) that some segment of their employee/customer base would get wet by hearing this news and it more than offsets the lots business, thus is worth it.
    - Analemma_ 8mo ago
      You seem really unaware of the timeline of this issue and what has actually happened, I think you should update your info before posting so confidently wrongly. The contract, including Anthropic's redlines, was signed more than a year ago and has been humming along with no objections from anybody. Hegseth abruptly got a bug up his ass about it last week, and demanded Anthropic sign a revised version under threat of punishment. Anthropic is simply saying "no, we will not be forced into signing a new version, you can either keep going with the original terms we all agreed to, or stop using us". The Pentagon can simply stop using Anthropic if they don't like the terms anymore (which, again, are the terms Pentagon agreed to in the first place). But what the DoW wants is to strong-arm Anthropic, using the DPA, into new terms because they abruptly changed their mind. That's not "negotiation" in any sense, that's Mafia behavior.
      - tgma 8mo ago
        How you characterize the behavior, Mafia or not, is of course your opinion, and I am sure if you are a voter/stakeholder you'd consider that in your political activity, but I'd appreciate if you clarify what you mean but your story and timeline, so I ask again, are you suggesting the US government has breached the contract they already signed?
        ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
        The comment you replied to is pretty clear: Yes, the US government seeks to void the contract they already signed. That said, many government contracts include some variant of "we can cancel at any time for any reason".
- thewebguyd 8mo ago
  > completely understandable decision from a neutral third party PoV. Except it's not, really. If Anthropic/Claude doesn't mean the DoD's need, they can and should just put out an RFP for other LLM providers. I'm sure there's plenty of others that'd happily forgo their morals for that sweet government contract money. No US company has to provide services to the DoD or any other branch of government. It's not "veto power" it's being selective of who you do business with, which is 100% legal.
  - tgma 8mo ago
    I don't understand your point here. Looks like what you suggest is exactly what is happening. US government did not ban Anthropic from conducting business in the US. They just don't want them to influence their own supply chain, 100% legal as you say.
    - techblueberry 8mo ago
      The governments supply chain is like 80% of the US
      - tgma 8mo ago
        And the point is? They made a voluntary business decision not to sell to them, whatever that number is. Possibly more than offset by marketing gains and loyalty from other segments; or not.
        array_key_first 8mo ago
        Its not voluntary if its coerced and done under threat. I don't understand this phenomena of people acting like the stupidest human beings who ever lived. This is not your first day on Earth - you understand how coersion works and what voluntary means.
    - SatvikBeri 8mo ago
      If the government just banned all government agencies from working with Anthropic, that would be reasonable. But they didn't. They're banning any company that works with the military from working with Anthropic in any way, using a law that has never been invoked against an American company.
- pron 8mo ago
  Not unless they're the sole supplier of the technology. They're saying, if you want to do this kind of thing - not with our product, but you can get it elsewhere.
- Me1000 8mo ago
  Then you go to another supplier. But any company with proper counsel will tell them the same thing: don't break the law, which is exactly what they're trying to coerce Anthropic into doing. DoD requests do not supersede the law.
  - BLKNSLVR 8mo ago
    What is this "law" you speak of? I understand 'goals' and 'means to an end', but this concept of "law" evades me.
drumhead 8mo ago
Dont forget Nvidia technology was condsidered too sensitive to be exported to China....until the Trump administration decided they could export it if they paid a 10% export tax.
- CSSer 8mo ago
  We've moved beyond telling people not to forget and have entered "expect nothing less" territory
- kingstnap 8mo ago
  Aren't export taxes against the US constitution?
  - jibal 8mo ago
    Yes ... but what's your point? /s
  - RemainsOfTheDay 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - aryonoco 8mo ago
    Yes but only if you call them export taxes. If it’s payments to continuously verify National Security protections, it’s all good.
- jmyeet 8mo ago
  The part of this you're missing is that China doesn't want it [1]. Why? Because China will make their own. This has been obvious to me for at least 1-2 years. The US doesn't allow EUV lithography machines from ASML to be exported to China either. I believe the previous export ban on the most advanced chip was a strategic error because it created a captive market of Chinese customers for Chinese chips. China will replicate EUV far quicker than Western governments expect. All it takes is to throw money at a few key ASML engineers and researchers and the commitment of the state to follow through with this project, which they will. I'm absolutely reminded of the atomic bomb. This created quite the debate in military and foreign policy circles about what to do. The prevailing presumption was that the USSR would take 20 years to develop their own bomb if it ever happened. It took 4 years. And then in 1952 the US detonated the first thermonuclear bomb. The USSR followed suit in 1953. [1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/nvidia-still-hasnt-sold-a-single-h200-to-china-nearly-three-months-after-getting-the-green-light-from-the-white-house-u-s-commerce-official-says-department-hasnt-approved-any-sales-during-a-house-hearing https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
xXSLAYERXx 8mo ago
Isn't this our governments classic negotiation strategy? Go to the extreme, and meet somewhere well on their side of the middle.
- xpe 8mo ago
  The Trump administration tends to use this playbook. Putting aside my take, I’m trying to objectively make sure I’m grounded on what is likely to happen next, without confusing “what is” with “what is ok”.
__del__ 8mo ago
the administration which declares ad-hoc emergencies is behaving as predicted
- whatsupdog 8mo ago
  [flagged]
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
Keep in mind that Anthropic “is the only A.I. company currently operating on the Pentagon’s classified systems” [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/defense-department-anthropic-ai-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/defense-depart...
- stingraycharles 8mo ago
  Because Palentir is using Anthropic.
j2kun 8mo ago
It's a waste of your effort to apply rational argument to the actions of a group that are in it for a shakedown.
- zmgsabst 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hobs 8mo ago
    I like how you use the phrase social responsibilities to mean doing whatever the DoD wants which includes spying on the American people and operating autonomous drones to kill people. It's like saying they have social responsibilities to enable murder for people who have been shown to be unthinking murderers justifying the most pointless murders because they think it makes "their side" winners.
    - kalkin 8mo ago
      I think Scott Alexander (of all people) got the number of the tech-right Trump defenders on this one: https://xcancel.com/slatestarcodex/status/2027414237484904518?s=20 https://xcancel.com/slatestarcodex/status/202741423748490451...
    - monknomo 8mo ago
      That usage turns the entire meaning of social responsibilities on its heads. It's one of those maddening fash tics where they reverse the plain meaning a statement.
  - garbawarb 8mo ago
    Are they legally required to agree to a new contract? Which law says this?
  - kalkin 8mo ago
    > petite bourgeoisie clutching their pearls > mean girl slights
whatsupdog 8mo ago
[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  > They are a "supply chain risk" if they can willy-nilly break their contract with US govt and enforce arbitrary rules to service. It is the US govt that seeks to break their contract with Anthropic. The contract they signed had the safeguards, so they were mutually agreed upon. These safeguards against fully autonomous killbots and AI spying of US citizens was known before signing. This conflict now is because the US govt regrets what they agreed to in the contract.
  - whatsupdog 8mo ago
    > These safeguards against fully autonomous killbots and AI spying of US citizens was known before signing source?
    - derektank 8mo ago
      https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-hegseth-dario https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-h...
- roxolotl 8mo ago
  The United States has freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. A company can always direct their money, speech, however they like with regards to the government. Can you be sued for breach of contract? Sure. Is it a supply chain risk absolutely not.
- jackp96 8mo ago
  Any documentation regarding the claim about breaking their contract? Haven't heard that. Regardless, as someone who works with these models daily (as well as company leadership that loves AI more than they understand it) - Anthropic is absolutely right to say that the military shouldn't be allowed to use it for lethal, autonomous force.
roenxi 8mo ago
> So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months? That does seem to be what Hegseth is arguing, yes; and that is presumably his justification for doing something drastic here. Although I assume he is lying or wrong. And as a cynic, let me just add that the image of someone going to the political overseers of the US military with arguments about being "effective" or "altruistic" is just hilarious given their history over the last ~40 years.
- xpe 8mo ago
  There has been a terrifying decline in quality and an increase in corruption in Trump’s second administration. Re: the hilarity part, I’m conflicted: in general, a good sense of humor is useful, but in present circumstances a stoic seriousness seems warranted.
tclancy 8mo ago
It’s the mob. This is nothing more than, “Nice AI ya got here. Be a shame if sometin’ wuz to happen to it.”
- nemo44x 8mo ago
  Except that it’s sovereign.
  - stahtops 8mo ago
    Sovereign like King George III?
    - redwall_hp 8mo ago
      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. [...] He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. [...] He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [...] For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: — The Declaration of Independence https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... People threw tea in Boston Harbor over less than the tariffs.
  - tclancy 8mo ago
hirako2000 8mo ago
Can't just unplug the thing and use something else. Obviously the DoD would not want limited use. Strange they don't make their own given their specific needs.
- nullocator 8mo ago
  I think this is maybe the most revealing thing about this saga, that seemingly the U.S. government has not been training their own frontier models.
  - hirako2000 8mo ago
    Perhaps getting donations from Altman and "investing" directly in OpenAI is more convenient.
  - sigwinch 8mo ago
    Or, Hegseth revved up an internal govt model and found it just as woke as Anthropic.
- xpe 8mo ago
  > Obviously the DoD would not want limited use. I agree in this sense: Hegseth's Dept. of War doesn't want any restrictions. I'll try to make the case this is self-defeating, assuming one has genuine, long-term national interests at the front of mind (which I think is lacking or at least confused in Hegseth). Historically, other (wiser) SecDefs would decide more carefully. They are aware when their actions would position DoD outside of reasonable ethical norms, as defined both by their key personnel as well as broader culture. I think they would recognize Hegseth's course of action as having two broadly negative effects: 1. Technology, Employees, Contractors. Jeopardizes DoD's access to the best technology. Undermines efforts in hiring the best people. Demotivates existing employees and contractors. Bullying leads to fearful contractors who perform worse. Fewer good contractors show up. Trumpist corruption further degrades an already lagging, sluggish, inefficient system.* 2. Goodwill & Effectiveness. Damages international goodwill that takes a long time to restore. Goodwill is a good investment; it pays dividends for U.S. military strength. The fallout will distract Hegseth from legitimately important duties and further undermine his credibility. Leading probably to a political mess for Hegseth, undermining his political capital. * Improving DoD procurement is already hard given existing constraints. Adding Trumpist-level corruption makes it unnecessarily worse. There is already an unsavory, poorly tracked, bloated gravy train around the military industrial complex.** ** BUT... Despite all this, the system has more or less worked reasonably well for more than what, 80 years! It has enjoyed bipartisan continuity, kept scientists and mathematicians well funded, and spurred lots of useful industries. It is, in a weird gnarly way, a sort of flux capacitor for U.S. technical dominance.
jrmg 8mo ago
They are the same amount of ‘risk’ to national security that the various ‘emergencies’ the executive branch has used as legal excuses to do otherwise illegal things are emergencies. Congress is negligent in not reigning this kind of thing in. We’re rapidly falling down so many slippery semantic slopes.
- runlaszlorun 8mo ago
  I'm def adding "slippery semantic slopes" to my vocab.
stingraycharles 8mo ago
From what i understand, Palentir using Claude during the capturing of Maduro is the reason all this started, as Anthropic did not agree their systems were used that way. [1] Obviously Palentir and others need time to migrate off Anthropic’s products. The way i read it is that Anthropic made a serious miscalculation by joining the DoD contracts last year, you can’t have these kind of moral standards and at the same time have Palentir as a customer. The lack of foresight is interesting. 1 https://www.axios.com/2026/02/15/claude-pentagon-anthropic-contract-maduro https://www.axios.com/2026/02/15/claude-pentagon-anthropic-c...
pornel 8mo ago
> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect For this administration the law isn't something that binds them, but something they can use against others.

wat10000 8mo ago

Don't make the mistake of thinking their words have meaning. They see a way to punish the company, they take it. Same thing with declaring a national emergency to impose tariffs. There's no supply chain risk, no national emergency, but that doesn't stop them.

tgma 8mo ago

[flagged]

gip 8mo ago
Or worse: train the AI to make decisions that align with the view of Anthropic management and not the elected government. Workout telling anyone. I’d agree it is a serious risk.
- verdverm 8mo ago
  The government is supposed to represent the people and their will, not dictate The current government is deeply unpopular, it's only going to get worse for them.
- cholantesh 8mo ago
  This rather implies that simply being elected casts a binding on officials that forces them to pursue popular will with their mandate.
Analemma_ 8mo ago
No, you are the one lying trying to get political gotchas here. There is no "trying to exert veto power" absolutely anywhere, Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. If they didn't like the terms, they didn't need to sign the contract.
- tgma 8mo ago
  What are you suggesting here? US government breaching the contract already signed? I am not aware of that happening here. > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. It's called negotiation in business. I am sure both sides are clear-eyed on what the consequences were and Anthropic made a calculated bet (probably correctly) that some segment of their employee/customer base would get wet by hearing this news and it more than offsets the lots business, thus is worth it.
  - Analemma_ 8mo ago
    You seem really unaware of the timeline of this issue and what has actually happened, I think you should update your info before posting so confidently wrongly. The contract, including Anthropic's redlines, was signed more than a year ago and has been humming along with no objections from anybody. Hegseth abruptly got a bug up his ass about it last week, and demanded Anthropic sign a revised version under threat of punishment. Anthropic is simply saying "no, we will not be forced into signing a new version, you can either keep going with the original terms we all agreed to, or stop using us". The Pentagon can simply stop using Anthropic if they don't like the terms anymore (which, again, are the terms Pentagon agreed to in the first place). But what the DoW wants is to strong-arm Anthropic, using the DPA, into new terms because they abruptly changed their mind. That's not "negotiation" in any sense, that's Mafia behavior.
    - tgma 8mo ago
      How you characterize the behavior, Mafia or not, is of course your opinion, and I am sure if you are a voter/stakeholder you'd consider that in your political activity, but I'd appreciate if you clarify what you mean but your story and timeline, so I ask again, are you suggesting the US government has breached the contract they already signed?
      - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
        The comment you replied to is pretty clear: Yes, the US government seeks to void the contract they already signed. That said, many government contracts include some variant of "we can cancel at any time for any reason".
thewebguyd 8mo ago
> completely understandable decision from a neutral third party PoV. Except it's not, really. If Anthropic/Claude doesn't mean the DoD's need, they can and should just put out an RFP for other LLM providers. I'm sure there's plenty of others that'd happily forgo their morals for that sweet government contract money. No US company has to provide services to the DoD or any other branch of government. It's not "veto power" it's being selective of who you do business with, which is 100% legal.
- tgma 8mo ago
  I don't understand your point here. Looks like what you suggest is exactly what is happening. US government did not ban Anthropic from conducting business in the US. They just don't want them to influence their own supply chain, 100% legal as you say.
  - techblueberry 8mo ago
    The governments supply chain is like 80% of the US
    - tgma 8mo ago
      And the point is? They made a voluntary business decision not to sell to them, whatever that number is. Possibly more than offset by marketing gains and loyalty from other segments; or not.
      - array_key_first 8mo ago
        Its not voluntary if its coerced and done under threat. I don't understand this phenomena of people acting like the stupidest human beings who ever lived. This is not your first day on Earth - you understand how coersion works and what voluntary means.
  - SatvikBeri 8mo ago
    If the government just banned all government agencies from working with Anthropic, that would be reasonable. But they didn't. They're banning any company that works with the military from working with Anthropic in any way, using a law that has never been invoked against an American company.
pron 8mo ago
Not unless they're the sole supplier of the technology. They're saying, if you want to do this kind of thing - not with our product, but you can get it elsewhere.
Me1000 8mo ago
Then you go to another supplier. But any company with proper counsel will tell them the same thing: don't break the law, which is exactly what they're trying to coerce Anthropic into doing. DoD requests do not supersede the law.
- BLKNSLVR 8mo ago
  What is this "law" you speak of? I understand 'goals' and 'means to an end', but this concept of "law" evades me.

drumhead 8mo ago

Dont forget Nvidia technology was condsidered too sensitive to be exported to China....until the Trump administration decided they could export it if they paid a 10% export tax.

CSSer 8mo ago
We've moved beyond telling people not to forget and have entered "expect nothing less" territory
kingstnap 8mo ago
Aren't export taxes against the US constitution?
- jibal 8mo ago
  Yes ... but what's your point? /s
- RemainsOfTheDay 8mo ago
  [dead]
- aryonoco 8mo ago
  Yes but only if you call them export taxes. If it’s payments to continuously verify National Security protections, it’s all good.
jmyeet 8mo ago
The part of this you're missing is that China doesn't want it [1]. Why? Because China will make their own. This has been obvious to me for at least 1-2 years. The US doesn't allow EUV lithography machines from ASML to be exported to China either. I believe the previous export ban on the most advanced chip was a strategic error because it created a captive market of Chinese customers for Chinese chips. China will replicate EUV far quicker than Western governments expect. All it takes is to throw money at a few key ASML engineers and researchers and the commitment of the state to follow through with this project, which they will. I'm absolutely reminded of the atomic bomb. This created quite the debate in military and foreign policy circles about what to do. The prevailing presumption was that the USSR would take 20 years to develop their own bomb if it ever happened. It took 4 years. And then in 1952 the US detonated the first thermonuclear bomb. The USSR followed suit in 1953. [1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/nvidia-still-hasnt-sold-a-single-h200-to-china-nearly-three-months-after-getting-the-green-light-from-the-white-house-u-s-commerce-official-says-department-hasnt-approved-any-sales-during-a-house-hearing https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

xXSLAYERXx 8mo ago

Isn't this our governments classic negotiation strategy? Go to the extreme, and meet somewhere well on their side of the middle.

xpe 8mo ago
The Trump administration tends to use this playbook. Putting aside my take, I’m trying to objectively make sure I’m grounded on what is likely to happen next, without confusing “what is” with “what is ok”.

__del__ 8mo ago

the administration which declares ad-hoc emergencies is behaving as predicted

whatsupdog 8mo ago
[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

Keep in mind that Anthropic “is the only A.I. company currently operating on the Pentagon’s classified systems” [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/defense-department-anthropic-ai-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/defense-depart...

stingraycharles 8mo ago
Because Palentir is using Anthropic.

j2kun 8mo ago

It's a waste of your effort to apply rational argument to the actions of a group that are in it for a shakedown.

zmgsabst 8mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- hobs 8mo ago
  I like how you use the phrase social responsibilities to mean doing whatever the DoD wants which includes spying on the American people and operating autonomous drones to kill people. It's like saying they have social responsibilities to enable murder for people who have been shown to be unthinking murderers justifying the most pointless murders because they think it makes "their side" winners.
  - kalkin 8mo ago
    I think Scott Alexander (of all people) got the number of the tech-right Trump defenders on this one: https://xcancel.com/slatestarcodex/status/2027414237484904518?s=20 https://xcancel.com/slatestarcodex/status/202741423748490451...
  - monknomo 8mo ago
    That usage turns the entire meaning of social responsibilities on its heads. It's one of those maddening fash tics where they reverse the plain meaning a statement.
- garbawarb 8mo ago
  Are they legally required to agree to a new contract? Which law says this?
- kalkin 8mo ago
  > petite bourgeoisie clutching their pearls > mean girl slights

whatsupdog 8mo ago

[flagged]

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
> They are a "supply chain risk" if they can willy-nilly break their contract with US govt and enforce arbitrary rules to service. It is the US govt that seeks to break their contract with Anthropic. The contract they signed had the safeguards, so they were mutually agreed upon. These safeguards against fully autonomous killbots and AI spying of US citizens was known before signing. This conflict now is because the US govt regrets what they agreed to in the contract.
- whatsupdog 8mo ago
  > These safeguards against fully autonomous killbots and AI spying of US citizens was known before signing source?
  - derektank 8mo ago
    https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-hegseth-dario https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-h...
roxolotl 8mo ago
The United States has freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. A company can always direct their money, speech, however they like with regards to the government. Can you be sued for breach of contract? Sure. Is it a supply chain risk absolutely not.
jackp96 8mo ago
Any documentation regarding the claim about breaking their contract? Haven't heard that. Regardless, as someone who works with these models daily (as well as company leadership that loves AI more than they understand it) - Anthropic is absolutely right to say that the military shouldn't be allowed to use it for lethal, autonomous force.

roenxi 8mo ago

> So I guess our national security is significantly at risk for the next six months? That does seem to be what Hegseth is arguing, yes; and that is presumably his justification for doing something drastic here. Although I assume he is lying or wrong. And as a cynic, let me just add that the image of someone going to the political overseers of the US military with arguments about being "effective" or "altruistic" is just hilarious given their history over the last ~40 years.

xpe 8mo ago
There has been a terrifying decline in quality and an increase in corruption in Trump’s second administration. Re: the hilarity part, I’m conflicted: in general, a good sense of humor is useful, but in present circumstances a stoic seriousness seems warranted.

tclancy 8mo ago

It’s the mob. This is nothing more than, “Nice AI ya got here. Be a shame if sometin’ wuz to happen to it.”

nemo44x 8mo ago
Except that it’s sovereign.
- stahtops 8mo ago
  Sovereign like King George III?
  - redwall_hp 8mo ago
    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. [...] He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. [...] He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [...] For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: — The Declaration of Independence https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... People threw tea in Boston Harbor over less than the tariffs.
- tclancy 8mo ago

hirako2000 8mo ago

Can't just unplug the thing and use something else. Obviously the DoD would not want limited use. Strange they don't make their own given their specific needs.

nullocator 8mo ago
I think this is maybe the most revealing thing about this saga, that seemingly the U.S. government has not been training their own frontier models.
- hirako2000 8mo ago
  Perhaps getting donations from Altman and "investing" directly in OpenAI is more convenient.
- sigwinch 8mo ago
  Or, Hegseth revved up an internal govt model and found it just as woke as Anthropic.
xpe 8mo ago
> Obviously the DoD would not want limited use. I agree in this sense: Hegseth's Dept. of War doesn't want any restrictions. I'll try to make the case this is self-defeating, assuming one has genuine, long-term national interests at the front of mind (which I think is lacking or at least confused in Hegseth). Historically, other (wiser) SecDefs would decide more carefully. They are aware when their actions would position DoD outside of reasonable ethical norms, as defined both by their key personnel as well as broader culture. I think they would recognize Hegseth's course of action as having two broadly negative effects: 1. Technology, Employees, Contractors. Jeopardizes DoD's access to the best technology. Undermines efforts in hiring the best people. Demotivates existing employees and contractors. Bullying leads to fearful contractors who perform worse. Fewer good contractors show up. Trumpist corruption further degrades an already lagging, sluggish, inefficient system.* 2. Goodwill & Effectiveness. Damages international goodwill that takes a long time to restore. Goodwill is a good investment; it pays dividends for U.S. military strength. The fallout will distract Hegseth from legitimately important duties and further undermine his credibility. Leading probably to a political mess for Hegseth, undermining his political capital. * Improving DoD procurement is already hard given existing constraints. Adding Trumpist-level corruption makes it unnecessarily worse. There is already an unsavory, poorly tracked, bloated gravy train around the military industrial complex.** ** BUT... Despite all this, the system has more or less worked reasonably well for more than what, 80 years! It has enjoyed bipartisan continuity, kept scientists and mathematicians well funded, and spurred lots of useful industries. It is, in a weird gnarly way, a sort of flux capacitor for U.S. technical dominance.

jrmg 8mo ago

They are the same amount of ‘risk’ to national security that the various ‘emergencies’ the executive branch has used as legal excuses to do otherwise illegal things are emergencies. Congress is negligent in not reigning this kind of thing in. We’re rapidly falling down so many slippery semantic slopes.

runlaszlorun 8mo ago
I'm def adding "slippery semantic slopes" to my vocab.

stingraycharles 8mo ago

From what i understand, Palentir using Claude during the capturing of Maduro is the reason all this started, as Anthropic did not agree their systems were used that way. [1] Obviously Palentir and others need time to migrate off Anthropic’s products. The way i read it is that Anthropic made a serious miscalculation by joining the DoD contracts last year, you can’t have these kind of moral standards and at the same time have Palentir as a customer. The lack of foresight is interesting. 1 https://www.axios.com/2026/02/15/claude-pentagon-anthropic-contract-maduro https://www.axios.com/2026/02/15/claude-pentagon-anthropic-c...

pornel 8mo ago

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect For this administration the law isn't something that binds them, but something they can use against others.