4 ms·

Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was j

by 0x3f 7mo ago

Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".

epolanski 7mo ago
It's a strong signal that the government cannot strong arm privates.
- simmerup 7mo ago
  Though of course that would require the government to respect the rule of law
mmoustafa 7mo ago
The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.
- 0x3f 7mo ago
  Yes, but > I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
  - mmoustafa 7mo ago
    Aaand that would get challenged in court, remember they had to get Congress to create this designation in the first place because it is not de-facto legal for the USG to discriminate between individuals or corporations.
  - root_axis 7mo ago
    That doesn't make any sense. You can't apply an informal policy to the entire supply chain.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- verdverm 7mo ago
  There are multiple designations, any part of government, defense applications, not allowed. For example, in certain outcomes, Anthropic may not be used by the Pentagon, but still be used by the IRS.
why_only_15 7mo ago
The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https://calaveras.ai/ https://calaveras.ai/ because we sell to AI companies who in turn sell to DoD).
- 0x3f 7mo ago
  I understand that, but I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
  - Dylan16807 7mo ago
    How is an unwritten policy about suppliers of suppliers of suppliers going to affect a million companies?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
    How would they implement such a policy? Amazon, Google, etc. aren't realistically going to terminate all business with Anthropic based on an informal policy that the DoD won't write down.
    - 0x3f 7mo ago
      Same as they already pressure these companies. Remove access to the admin thus giving them unfavorable terms on other issues compared to their rivals. Tell them as much in private and what they can do to rectify it. That's this admin's whole modus operandi, is it not? There's a reason all the CEOs clamor to go to the relevant WH events.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
        A CEO's time isn't that valuable. Even if you count an amortized fraction of their total compensation, sending them to a White House event for an evening is orders of magnitude less costly than giving up access to the best software development tools.
ethin 7mo ago
I believe designating an entity a supply chain risk has far deeper implications than the DoD avoiding that entity, and goes as far as a lawful prohibition for any contractor of the USG being also prohibited from using or working with the entity so designated. Ironically enough, if the comments in this discussion are true that Palantír uses Claude, Palantír would've also been prohibited as well.
- 0x3f 7mo ago
  I think that's what the common reporting implies, but I'm not confident that it's true. My understanding is that a supply chain risk must specifically be involved in the supply chain, hence the name. It may be that the admin hypes up their powers for the purposes of instilling fear, but as evidenced by this very post, they can be wrong.

by 0x3f 7mo ago

epolanski 7mo ago

It's a strong signal that the government cannot strong arm privates.

simmerup 7mo ago
Though of course that would require the government to respect the rule of law

mmoustafa 7mo ago

The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.

0x3f 7mo ago
Yes, but > I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
- mmoustafa 7mo ago
  Aaand that would get challenged in court, remember they had to get Congress to create this designation in the first place because it is not de-facto legal for the USG to discriminate between individuals or corporations.
- root_axis 7mo ago
  That doesn't make any sense. You can't apply an informal policy to the entire supply chain.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
verdverm 7mo ago
There are multiple designations, any part of government, defense applications, not allowed. For example, in certain outcomes, Anthropic may not be used by the Pentagon, but still be used by the IRS.

why_only_15 7mo ago

The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https://calaveras.ai/ https://calaveras.ai/ because we sell to AI companies who in turn sell to DoD).

0x3f 7mo ago
I understand that, but I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  How is an unwritten policy about suppliers of suppliers of suppliers going to affect a million companies?
- SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
  How would they implement such a policy? Amazon, Google, etc. aren't realistically going to terminate all business with Anthropic based on an informal policy that the DoD won't write down.
  - 0x3f 7mo ago
    Same as they already pressure these companies. Remove access to the admin thus giving them unfavorable terms on other issues compared to their rivals. Tell them as much in private and what they can do to rectify it. That's this admin's whole modus operandi, is it not? There's a reason all the CEOs clamor to go to the relevant WH events.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
      A CEO's time isn't that valuable. Even if you count an amortized fraction of their total compensation, sending them to a White House event for an evening is orders of magnitude less costly than giving up access to the best software development tools.

ethin 7mo ago

I believe designating an entity a supply chain risk has far deeper implications than the DoD avoiding that entity, and goes as far as a lawful prohibition for any contractor of the USG being also prohibited from using or working with the entity so designated. Ironically enough, if the comments in this discussion are true that Palantír uses Claude, Palantír would've also been prohibited as well.

0x3f 7mo ago
I think that's what the common reporting implies, but I'm not confident that it's true. My understanding is that a supply chain risk must specifically be involved in the supply chain, hence the name. It may be that the admin hypes up their powers for the purposes of instilling fear, but as evidenced by this very post, they can be wrong.