The disconnect here for me is, I assume the DoW and Anthropic signed a contract at some point and that contract most likely stipulated that these are the things they can do and these are the things they can't do.
I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original contact and agreed to those terms, then they went back and said no, you need to remove those safeguards to which Anthropic is (rightly so) saying no.
Am I missing something here?
EDIT: Re-reading Dario's post[1] from this morning I'm not missing anything. Those use cases were never part of the original contacts:
> Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War
So yeah this seems pretty cut and dry. Dow signed a contract with Anthropic and agreed to those terms. Then they decided to go back and renege on those original terms to which Anthropic said no. Then they promptly threw a temper tantrum on social media and designated them as a supply chain risk as retaliation.
My final opinion on this is Dario and Anthropic is in the right and the DoW is acting in bad faith by trying to alter the terms of their original contracts. And this doesn't even take into consideration the moral and ethical implications.
The administration's approach to contracts, agreements, treaties and so on could be summed up as 'I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.'
The basic problem in our polity is that we've collectively transferred the guilty pleasure of aligning a charismatic villain in fiction to doing the same in real life. The top echelons of our government are occupied by celebrities and influencers whose expertise is in performance rather than policy. For years now they've leaned into the aesthetics of being bad guys, performative cruelty, committing fictional atrocities, and so forth. Some MAGA influencers have even adopted the Imperial iconography from Star Wars as a means of differentiating themselves from liberal/democratic adoption of the 'rebel' iconography. So you have have influencers like conservative entrepreneur Alex Muse who styles his online presence as an Imperial stormtrooper. As Poe's law observes, at some point the ironic/sarcastic frame becomes obsolete and you get political proxies and members of the administration arguing for actual infringements of civil liberties, war crimes, violations of the Constitution and so on.
I think it's the other way around. They have always wanted to do those cruel things that have real victims. It took them many years of dedicated, coordinated efforts as they slowly inched many systems to align with their insane ideas. The villain branding is just that - branding. Many of them actually like the 'bad guys' in those stories, especially if those bad guys are portrayed as strong, uncompromising, militaristic, inhumane, and having simple, memorable iconography that instills fear - the more allusions to real life fascists, the better. But that enjoyment follows from their ideology and what they want to do in the world, not the other way around.
> *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic.
> *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one saying that the Pentagon shouldn’t work with them if it doesn’t want to. The Pentagon is the one trying to force Anthropic to sign the new contract.
I just wish there was a stronger source on this. I am inclined to agree you and the source you cited, but unfortunately
> [1] This story requires some reading between the lines - the exact text of the contract isn’t available - but something like it is suggested by the way both sides have been presenting the negotiations.
I deal with far too many people who won't believe me without 10 bullet-proof sources but get very angry with me if I won't take their word without a source :(
It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue.
The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.
Regardless of the original contract, it's entirely appropriate for a vendor to tell the customer how to use any materials.
Imagine a _leaded_ pipe supplier not being allowed to tell the department of war they shouldn't use leaded pipes for drinking water! It's the job of the vendor to tell the customer appropriate usage.
Claude Opus is just remarkably good at analysis IMO, much better than any competitor I’ve tried. It was remarkably good and complete at helping me with some health issues I’ve had in the past few months. If you were to turn that kind of analytical power in a way to observe the behaviour of American citizens and to change it perhaps, to make them vote a certain way. Or something like - finding terrorists, finding patterns that help you identify undocumented people.
Yep. Choosing not to renew a contract with a provider who has voluntarily excluded itself from your use case is respecting that provider's choice and acting accordingly.
Not in software though. Clear precedent has been established via EULAs. Software companies set the rules and if users don't like, they can piss off. I don't see why it would be any different for the government.
> Regardless of the original contract, it's entirely appropriate for a vendor to tell the customer how to use any materials.
Utter nonsense. When the US built the Blackbird, it could only use titanium because of the heat involved in traveling at that speed. But they didn't have enough titanium in the US. So the the US created front companies to purchase titanium from the Soviet Union.
Do you think the US should have informed the Soviet Union what it wanted to do with the metal?
Yes, it's officially still the Department of Defense.
If this were a news outline writing "Department of War" I would be concerned. But in the case of the Anthropic CEO's blog post, I can understand why they are picking their fights.
It's a silly shibboleth, but I automatically ignore anyone who calls it the Department of War or Gulf of America. Hasn't steered me wrong yet. They're telling me they're the kind of people who only care about defending fascism.
They can, however, rename their Twitter/X accounts and vacate the @SecDef handle, which seems to be up for grabs now, if anyone wants to do the funniest thing...
Of all the silly things that Trump did, I think this one is the most reasonable. This has always been a department of war. Calling it defense was propaganda.
the entire administration negotiates in bad faith. literally every agreement they sign whether it's international trade or corporate contracts is up to the whim of a toddler with twitter
And they don’t think anything through. If they do this then Amazon, Google and the rest will need to terminate their involvement with Anthropic. Trump will be getting a call from some Wall Street bigwigs imminently and it’ll get rolled back, I bet.
Contract law will certainly be a casualty once Rule of Law has completely been broken. I don’t understand why the business sector isn’t pushing back more. Surely they must all know that the legal legal context itself, within which they all operate, is at mortal risk and that Business as Usual will vanish once autocratic capture is complete.
My main takeaway from all of this is that Hegseth seems deeply unfit for his job. First there was the Signal leak and now this.
Look, Anthropic is not going to be designated a supply chain risk. 80% of the Fortune 500 have contracts with them. Probably a similar percentage of defense contractors. Amazon is a defense contractor for example. They'd have to remove Claude from their AWS offerings. Everyone running Claude on AWS, boom gone. The level of disruption to the US economy would be off the charts, and for what? Why? Because Hegseth had a bad day? Because he's a sore loser?
If he's decided he doesn't like the DoW's contract then he can cancel it, fine. To try and exact revenge on the best American frontier model along with 80% of the Fortune 500 in the process, to go out of his way to harm hundreds or perhaps thousands of American firms, defies all reason. This is behavior you would expect any adult would understand as petty and foolish, let alone one who's made it to the highest ranks of government.
So I think it's just not going to happen, Trump's statement on the matter notably didn't mention a supply chain risk designation. This suggests to me that Hegseth went off half cocked. The guy is a liability for Trump at this point, I'm guessing he won't last much longer.
| then they went back and said no, you need to remove those safeguards to which Anthropic is (rightly so) saying no.
So one thing to call out here is that the assumption that DoW is working on specifically these use cases is not bullet proof. They simply may not want to share with anthropic exactly what they are working on for natsec issues. /we can't tell you/ could violate the terms.
It is also dumb that DoW accepted these terms in the first place.
Is this matter about publicly available model or private model? For publicly available model like opus 4.6, bad actors can do whatever they want and Anthropic won't know.
If this is only about private custom model, designating public model as supply chain risk doesn't make sense as others can use it.
With this administration, after all their proven lies, when in doubt, assume bad faith on their part. Assuming good faith at this point is Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football, but now the football is fascism (i.e., state control of corporations, e.g., what Trump administration is doing here).
Trump has historically stiffed his contractors. Why do you think his administration would be any different with adhering to a contract?
If anyone is the epitomy of arrogance, it is Hegseth.
No doubt the US Gov't will be using A I to perform automated military strikes without human supervision. and spying on US citizens (which they already have been doing for decades now).
Look no further than the case of patriot Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, exposed a massive NSA surveillance program in 2006, revealing that AT&T allowed the government to intercept, copy, and monitor massive amounts of American internet traffic. Klein discovered a secret, NSA-controlled room—Room 641A—inside an AT&T facility in San Francisco, which acted as a splitter for internet traffic.
I assume those agreements were probably signed before the current fascist regime running the US government and now they want to upend the terms of said agreement to allow in more fascism to aforementioned contract.
It's so fishy, I spent the morning reading sam'AMA and it's a classic whitewashing act. OpenAI is claiming their setup is stronger and that DOW has agreed to their red lines but read the agreement below, it only says use in compliance with laws and executive order.
Anthropic wouldn't have walked away from a multi million contract if their two redlines could be respected. OpenAI on the other hand is a fast, willing and ready company. I would love to see Anthropic's proposed contract
In our agreement, we protect our red lines through a more expansive, multi-layered approach. We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections. This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law.
We believe strongly in democracy. Given the importance of this technology, we believe that the only good path forward requires deep collaboration between AI efforts and the democratic process. We also believe our technology is going to introduce new risks in the world, and we want the people defending the United States to have the best tools.
Our agreement includes:
1. Deployment architecture. This is a cloud-only deployment, with a safety stack that we run that includes these principles and others. We are not providing the DoW with “guardrails off” or non-safety trained models, nor are we deploying our models on edge devices (where there could be a possibility of usage for autonomous lethal weapons).
Our deployment architecture will enable us to independently verify that these red lines are not crossed, including running and updating classifiers.
2. Our contract. Here is the relevant language:
The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control, nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by a human decisionmaker under the same authorities. Per DoD Directive 3000.09 (dtd 25 January 2023), any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must undergo rigorous verification, validation, and testing to ensure they perform as intended in realistic environments before deployment.
For intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives requiring a defined foreign intelligence purpose. The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities. The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law.
I was pondering the same thing and to me the answer is a contractor sold something to the DoD and Anthropic pulled the rug out from under that contractor and the DoD isn't happy about losing that.
My speculation is the "business records" domestic surveillance loophole Bush expanded (and that Palantir is build to service). That's usually how the government double-speaks its very real domestic surveillance programs. "It's technically not the government spying on you, it's private companies!" It's also why Hegseth can claim Anthropic is lying. It's not about direct government contracts. It's about contractors and the business records funnel.
Yes, I assumed a mass surveillance Palantir program also. Interesting take on how it allows them to claim “we are not doing this” while asking Anthropic to do it.
Of course they can just say - we aren’t, Palantir is.
Wow, and the only restrictions Anthropic asked for are (1) no mass domestic surveillance and (2) require human-in-the-loop for killing [1]. Those seem exceptionally reasonable, and even rather weak, lol :|
Anthropic had these conditions in their contract from the very beginning, in contracts negotiated under Biden. It is their actual principled stance, not maneuvering.
Their intention is to turn it against the American people. Hegseth literally wrote a book about eliminating democrats from the US, and this surprises people.
Trump doesn't want another election to happen. He needs some powerful tools to ensure that happens, ie, massive scale ai surveillance and manipulation. Eg, like Xi uses in China. I bet anyone here he starts a war as his excuse
In an interview with Zelinsky Trump asks "why haven't you had an election? " Zelensky
: "because we are at war" you can see the idea percolating then. People think I'm a nutter for suggesting there just won't be another election but that's where my money is. I'm waiting for his version of the Gestapo, ICE seems to be a proving ground
That's the restrictions for now. New restrictions could be added later or the situation of the world could change where those no longer seem reasonable. The military needs that ability to move fast and not be held back.
Even the most cockeyed reading of history will tell you that it is absolutely vital to the survival of humanity and all that is good on this earth that the US military be tied down and held back.
There are enough idiots involved who "heard about this AI thing" that would demand someone make a Claude-based kill bot. Do not underestimate the disconnect from reality of senior military leadership. They easily forget that everyone who works for them are legally obligated to laugh at their jokes.
Anthropic specifically called out systems "that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets".
I take that to mean they don't want the military using Claude to decide who to kill. As a hyperbolic yet frankly realistic example, they don't want Claude to make a mistake and direct the military to kill innocent children accidentally identified as narco-terrorists.
At least, that's the most charitable interpretation of everything going on. I suspect they are also worried that the sitting administration wants to use AI to help them execute a full autocratic takeover of the United States, so they're attempting to kill one of the world's most innovative companies to set an example and pressure other AI labs into letting their technology be used for such purposes.
You make a valid point. Dario suggests that DoD wants to have the capacity to do domestic surveillance and autonomous killing. Sean Parnell said the DoD doesn't want those capacities. These statements are in conflict. Them talking past each other is one possibility. Without much evidence except the track record of the Trump administration, I think it is much more likely that Sean Parnell is lying.
The announcement hasn't worked through official legal channels, but Anthropic is taking it seriously. The official channel will be a written explanation to Congress, and could be classified.
Hegseth objected to guardrails being "woke". Something about "curly haired" almost-men telling him how he can use his "war fighters".
I speculate that Trump and Hegseth were both late to the realization that AI could unwind, for example, the next Panama Papers, and are doing this to try to demonstrate power to the industry. Musk tried to explain all this, but they actually encountered him as "autistic". This all looks like a disjointed conversation because we can see slightly more of the future than them.
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?
SCOTUS says POTUS is above the law, so POTUS has collected $4B in bribe / protection money since taking office 13 months ago. Anthropic has lots of money at the moment. Why should they be allow to keep it?
Since they didn't pay off the president (enough?), his goons are going to screw with their revenue and run a PR smear campaign.
Once you realize it only has to do with Trump's personal finances, and nothing to do with national security or the rule of law, then all the administration's actions make perfect rational sense.
Open question: How much should a congress-critter charge Trump for a favorable vote? (The check should come with a presidential pardon in the envelope, of course...)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
> 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.
It's also a very clear differentiator for them relative to Google, Facebook, and OpenAI, all of whom are clearly varying degrees of willing to sell themselves out for evil purposes.
It will also cost openai dearly if they don't communicate clearly, because I for one will internally push to switch from openai (we are on azure actually) to anthropic. Besides that my private account also.
This whole saga is extremely depressing and dystopic.
Anthropic is holding firm on incredibly weak red lines. No mass surveillance for Americans, ok for everyone else, and ok to automatic war machines, just not fully unmanned until they can guarantee a certain quality.
This should be a laughably spineless position. But under this administration it is taken as an affront to the president and results in the government lashing out.
If you're a billionaire there's no risk to "sticking to principles", so there's nothing to admire. Also that's not what they're doing. These are calculated moves in a negotiation and the trump regime only has 3 years left. Even a CEO can think 4 years ahead.
It's probably in Anthropic's interest to throw grok to these clowns and watch them fail to build anything with it for 3 years.
i disagree. 3 years is an insanely long time in the AI space. The entire industry pretty much didn't even exist three years ago! Or at least not within 4 orders of magnitude.
Also, every other company has bent the knee and kissed the ring. And the trump admin will absolutely do everything they can to not appear weak and harm Anthropic. If it was so easy to act principled, don't you think other companies would've refused too? Eg Apple
And there is real harm here. You're reading about it - they get labeled a supply chain risk. This is negative and very tangible
So much left unsaid. So much implied. Let’s make it explicit and talk about it. Here are some follow questions that reasonable people will ask:
What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?
More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?
How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)
P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.
Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA.
In fact, as a patriotic American veteran, I'd be ok with Anthropic moving to Europe. It might be better for Claude and AGI, which are overriding issues for me.
Rutger Bregman @rcbregman
This is a huge opportunity for Europe. Welcome Anthropic with open arms. Roll out the red carpet. Visa for all employees.
Europe already controls the AI hardware bottleneck through ASML. Add the world's leading AI safety lab and you have the foundations of an AI superpower.
> Good. I'd rather not have my favorite AI from a company working on AGI to have murder and spying in it's DNA.
Anthropic made it quite clear they are cool with spying in general, just not domestic spying on Americans, and their "no killbots" pledge was asterisked with "because we don't believe the technology is reliable enough for those stakes yet". The implication being that they absolutely would do killbots once they think they can nail the execution (pun intended).
I suppose you could say they're taking the high road relative to their peers, but that's an extremely low bar.
I wouldn't say it's clear. People keep pointing to the wording used in the statement to say it, but I wonder if it has to do with constitutionally; domestic surveillance of people in the US without a warrant is against the constitution, and surveillance of non-citizens outside the U.S is not. Can they even be compelled by the executive branch to do an action that may be unconstitutional?
I have my doubts about Anthropic wanting to pick up and move the entire company to Europe even if Ursula von der Leyen personally signed their visas. Maybe only if the government tried to nationalise their proprietary models.
Canada is another option. Canada has significant AI research institutes going back decades ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mila_(research_institute) ) that have produced much of the foundational research that backs today's AI models.
For Americans and international researchers it's easy to get visas there quickly. It's not far at all for Americans to relocate to or visit. Electricity is cheap and clean. Canada has the most college educated adults per capita. The country's commitment to liberalism, and free markets, is also seeming more steadfast than the US at this point in time.
Canada faces obstacles with its much smaller VC ecosystem, its smaller domestic market, and the threat of US economic aggression. Canada's recent trade deals are likely to help there.
I say this all as an American who is loyal to American values first and foremost. If the US wants to move away from its core values I hope other countries, like Canada or the EU, can carry on as successful examples for the US to eventually return to.
Do all of the employees want to move to Europe suddenly? Unless it’s the UK or Ireland, do they speak the local language? If it is the UK or Ireland, do they prefer the weather in California? Do they have children in school or in college locally? Do they have family they’d rather not move 9 time zones away from? Elderly parents they’re taking care of?
"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895"
I'm sure this doesn't apply to you since you're not Lord Kelvin. On the other hand, people like Peter Norvig state in a popular AI textbook that, for example, they don't know why similar concepts appear close by in the vector space, so maybe you just know something other people don't.
I'm not taking a position here but the person you're replying to stated that Anthropic are working on AGI, not that their current LLM offering will evolve into AGI.
Europe doesn't have a culture of throwing illimitate money at startups with little hope of getting anything back. Which is probably due to not having petrodollars.
Why wouldn’t the government just arrest their board and execs on charges of treason or something? At this point they could probably publicly hang them all and a plurality of Americans would cheer it. I don’t know if you appreciate how disliked tech is by the left and right alike.
The left would never support that lawlessness: opposition to AI is based on things like ethics, environmental impact, etc. which are predicated on concepts like the rule of law. People are calling for regulation or UBI, mor killings.
The right has far more talk of violence, true, but a lot of that is targeted rhetoric to keep voters riled up, and it’s not aimed at American businesses. I’d be surprised if even a third of Republicans supported anything more than not doing business with Anthropic. Even the Nvidia shakedown got a ton of criticism and that’s just money.
Europe doesn’t give a shit about another American company and their employees trying to dominate their markets and import their workaholic American culture. They will tell Anthropic to go home.
"Europe" is not a single entity with uniform opinions. As an European, I would much rather have hardworking people and """workaholic""" culture than regress to an underdeveloped culture fueled by laziness.
Topics like this are where I struggle with HN philosophy. Normally avoiding politics and ideology where possible, created higher quality and more interesting discussions.
But how do you even begin to discuss that Tweet or this topic without talking about ideology and to contextualize this with other seemingly unrelated things currently going on in the US?
I genuinely don't think I'm conversationally agile enough to both discuss this topic while still able to avoid the political/ideological rabbit-hole.
You can't discuss this topic without broaching the idea that the government is acting in bad faith — that they don't actually believe that Anthropic is a supply-chain risk and that this action is meant to punish the company. But this is in the HN guidelines regarding comments:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
If a commenter who supports the government makes the same argument that the government is making, the guidelines tell us to assume good faith.
My conclusion is that any topic where a commenter might be making a bad faith argument is outside the scope of Hacker News.
My interpretation of that is that I’m required to assume good faith on behalf of other commenters. So, if someone makes the same argument as the government, I’m supposed to assume good faith there, but nothing requires me to assume good faith on behalf of the government. So I can say that this is obviously a shakedown without breaking the rules.
I've been on hn for years and I see this kind of sentiment raised all the time. It is not my understanding of the guidelines.
Politics and ideology are not off topic, provided the subject matter is of interest, or "gratifying", to colleagues in the tech/start-up space.
What's important is that we don't use rhetoric, bad faith or argumentation to force our views on others. But expressing our opinions about how policy affects technology and vice versa has always been welcome, in my observation.
So, what do you think about the US government's decision, and why?
>Topics like this are where I struggle with HN philosophy. Normally avoiding politics and ideology where possible, created higher quality and more interesting discussions.
Our whole society runs on technology. All tech is inherently political.
A "no politics" stance is merely an endorsement of the status quo.
Everything is political. All of our tech exists within society, and the actions of the government shape the incentives of every actor and the framework we exist in.
HN likes to pretend otherwise, especially when it's inconvenient.
If the last ten years have taught us anything it's that politics just isn't a topic isolated to the halls of government. It's real life. Political alignment has never so starkly indicative of your position on fundamental human morality. At the same time we've never had a government be so directly involved in private businesses.
Why would you want to be non-political in 2026? The current administration is awful in ways we couldn't have imagined. There's no sense in not talking about it.
Being a hacker used to be an extremely political and ideological movement. Then capitalism came along and bought the term. It's about time we take that word back where it belongs.
Tell me, oh sage, how it was possible to become a hacker before "capitalism" created the computers needed to do so? And no, hacking was not "an extremely political and ideological movement", it was (and is) the a[c,r]t of going down as deep the rabbit hole of whatever the was to be hacked as time and the hole allowed to see what lurks there. The term was eventually co-opted by the media - not "capitalism" - to identify those who broke into networks and computers but that does not need to bother you. There have been and are those who combine - usually anti-authoritarian - politics with hacking but they were and are only a part of the whole.
Don't you ever get tired of spouting that grade school "muh capitalism bad" pablum, of being what Lenin supposedly called a "useful idiot"? Also, who are the "we" who you think should "take back" the word hacking? In what way would this be "taking back" instead of "taking over"? If you think it should be "extremely political and ideological" it would surely be the latter. Would your definition of hacking have room for those who dared to venture beyond your "extremely political and ideological" boundaries or those who just want to hack without needing to wear the right buttons, pins and clothes?
I appreciate your restraint, and keeping this a high quality discussion space. As a political dissident myself, I don't mind some threads going political, I expect them to. The best ones are when there is a lot of disagreement or debate. As long as its not in every unrelated thread....
Welcome to reality. HN likes to pretend politics is something you can just look away from and ignore. That’s a mighty big privilege, which makes sense since HN skews cis-white-het-male. That’s not a lie. It is easy to ignore this when it doesn’t touch them. But now it DOES touch them, and you’ve just discovered what every oppressed group in history has to live with: politics doesn’t just go away if you ignore it.
McCarthyism began in 1947, with Truman demanding goverment employees be "screened for loyalty". They wanted to remove anyone who was a member of an "organization" they didn't like. It began with hearings, and then blacklists, and then arrests and prison sentences. It lasted until 1959. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)
This is the new McCarthyism. Do what the administration says, or you will be blacklisted, or worse.
The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude cannot survive on $200/mo individual powerusers. The math just doesn’t math.
None of the hyper scalers are going to stop offering Claude. All of the big 3 have invested billions of dollars into Anthropic, and have tens (if not hundreds) of billions more tied up in funding deals with them. Amazon and Google are two of the largest shareholders of Anthropic.
Anthropic is going to be fine. The DoD is going to walk this back and pretend it never happened to save face.
I would find that a lot more plausible if people had not spent the past week giving me similar arguments, in precisely the same tone, for why this was an empty threat and would never happen in the first place. If Amazon and Google do not either bow down or immediately join a business coalition to get Trump out of power, Hegseth will be even happier to get an opportunity to prove his power by destroying them. Trump either doesn't want to stop him or has become too senile to stop him.
GovCloud revenue is in the tens of billions of dollars. Bedrock less so. Almost every FedRAMP product uses the same codebase for Fed and non-Fed, and this would force most FedRAMP vendors to blackball Anthropic.
It will really depend on the fine details. If Amazon would lose its military contracts unless it dropped Claude, then Claude will be gone tomorrow. They just got a half billion contract for the Air Force earlier this year, and it's not their only military contract, and they're going to want to be well positioned next time something like the JEDI contract comes along.
Also, AWS has a long history of rolling over when politicians make noise about AWS customers, going back to when Joe Lieberman casually asked Bezos to please stop supporting Wikileaks.
I don't think you understand. This supply chain risk designation is viral. Every Claude model provider now has to decide whether to (1) drop Anthropic models, or (2) drop every single government contract, every contract with government contractors, or any customer who has any customer to any degree of connection to a government contract [which is effectively everyone], or (3) go to jail.
" Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."
> Contractors can still use Claude internally in their business, so long as it is not used in government work directly.
I work in the enterprise SaaS and cybersecurity industry. There is no way to guarantee that amongst any FedRAMP vendor (which is almost every cybersecurity and enterprise SaaS or on their roadmap).
Almost all FedRAMP products I've built, launched, sold, or funded were the same build as the commerical offering, but with siloed data and network access.
This means the entire security and enterprise SaaS industry will have to shift away from Anthropic unless the DPA is invoked and management is changed.
More likely, I think the DoD/DoW and their vendors will force Anthropic to retrain a sovereign model specifically for the US Gov.
Edit: Can't reply
> This is the core assertion that is not clear nor absolute.
If Walmart can forcibly add verbiage banning AWS from it's vendors and suppliers, the US government absolutely can. At least with Walmart they will accept a segmented environment using GCP+Azure+OCI. Retraining a foundational model to be Gov compliant is a project that would cost billions.
By declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk, it will now be contractually added by everyone becuase no GRC team will allow Anthropic anywhere in a company that even remotely touches FedRAMP and it will be forcibly added into contracts.
No one can guarantee that your codebase was not touched by Claude or a product using Claude in the background, so this will be added contractually.
From what I’ve heard the actual restriction is just on using Claude for stuff they’re doing for the Pentagon. They’ll keep using Claude for everything else and be less effective when they work for the government, and that’s fine because everyone else working for the government will have the same handicap.
This will likely go to court, again as Dario has stated this is blatant retaliation as no US company has ever been designated a supply chain risk and they continue to operate on classified systems for 6 more months.
Yea strong odds this goes to court, the DoD’s clearly inconsistent logic is ridiculed by a judge, the designation is dropped, and everyone quietly goes about their way with the DoD continuing to use Claude according to the existing terms of the contract.
I am both dumb and without access to Claude, thus I must ask: My fellow smart HN'ers, what kind of impacts would this likely have on the economy?
Has a lot of money and resources not been pumped into Anthropic (albeit likely less than OpenAI)? I imagine such a decision would not be the ROI that many investors expected.
There's going to be a TRO against the attempt by like 9 AM Monday, and the bad faith from the government couldn't be more obvious. All it's really going to do is cost them some extremely expensive lawyer time.
Readit News
I would assume the original terms the DoW is now railing against were in those original contracts that they signed. In that case it looks like the DoW is acting in bad faith here, they signed the original contact and agreed to those terms, then they went back and said no, you need to remove those safeguards to which Anthropic is (rightly so) saying no.
Am I missing something here?
EDIT: Re-reading Dario's post[1] from this morning I'm not missing anything. Those use cases were never part of the original contacts:
> Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War
So yeah this seems pretty cut and dry. Dow signed a contract with Anthropic and agreed to those terms. Then they decided to go back and renege on those original terms to which Anthropic said no. Then they promptly threw a temper tantrum on social media and designated them as a supply chain risk as retaliation.
My final opinion on this is Dario and Anthropic is in the right and the DoW is acting in bad faith by trying to alter the terms of their original contracts. And this doesn't even take into consideration the moral and ethical implications.
[1]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
The basic problem in our polity is that we've collectively transferred the guilty pleasure of aligning a charismatic villain in fiction to doing the same in real life. The top echelons of our government are occupied by celebrities and influencers whose expertise is in performance rather than policy. For years now they've leaned into the aesthetics of being bad guys, performative cruelty, committing fictional atrocities, and so forth. Some MAGA influencers have even adopted the Imperial iconography from Star Wars as a means of differentiating themselves from liberal/democratic adoption of the 'rebel' iconography. So you have have influencers like conservative entrepreneur Alex Muse who styles his online presence as an Imperial stormtrooper. As Poe's law observes, at some point the ironic/sarcastic frame becomes obsolete and you get political proxies and members of the administration arguing for actual infringements of civil liberties, war crimes, violations of the Constitution and so on.
Like, Mark Hamill himself is a massive Israel + Biden supporter [0].
Guys, George Lucas didn't make the Empire thinking about Trump, or Republicans. He made it about America.
0 - https://www.nme.com/news/film/hollywood-stars-sign-open-lett...
> *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic.
> *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one saying that the Pentagon shouldn’t work with them if it doesn’t want to. The Pentagon is the one trying to force Anthropic to sign the new contract.
[1]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pentagon-threatens-anth...
> [1] This story requires some reading between the lines - the exact text of the contract isn’t available - but something like it is suggested by the way both sides have been presenting the negotiations.
I deal with far too many people who won't believe me without 10 bullet-proof sources but get very angry with me if I won't take their word without a source :(
The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.
Imagine a _leaded_ pipe supplier not being allowed to tell the department of war they shouldn't use leaded pipes for drinking water! It's the job of the vendor to tell the customer appropriate usage.
Go look at the package on a kitchen knife and it says not to be used as a weapon
Claude Opus is just remarkably good at analysis IMO, much better than any competitor I’ve tried. It was remarkably good and complete at helping me with some health issues I’ve had in the past few months. If you were to turn that kind of analytical power in a way to observe the behaviour of American citizens and to change it perhaps, to make them vote a certain way. Or something like - finding terrorists, finding patterns that help you identify undocumented people.
Utter nonsense. When the US built the Blackbird, it could only use titanium because of the heat involved in traveling at that speed. But they didn't have enough titanium in the US. So the the US created front companies to purchase titanium from the Soviet Union.
Do you think the US should have informed the Soviet Union what it wanted to do with the metal?
If this were a news outline writing "Department of War" I would be concerned. But in the case of the Anthropic CEO's blog post, I can understand why they are picking their fights.
They want the department to fight wars. At least they’re being honest.
I can't see anyway this ends well for the US. I say this as both an American and a military veteran.
Look, Anthropic is not going to be designated a supply chain risk. 80% of the Fortune 500 have contracts with them. Probably a similar percentage of defense contractors. Amazon is a defense contractor for example. They'd have to remove Claude from their AWS offerings. Everyone running Claude on AWS, boom gone. The level of disruption to the US economy would be off the charts, and for what? Why? Because Hegseth had a bad day? Because he's a sore loser?
If he's decided he doesn't like the DoW's contract then he can cancel it, fine. To try and exact revenge on the best American frontier model along with 80% of the Fortune 500 in the process, to go out of his way to harm hundreds or perhaps thousands of American firms, defies all reason. This is behavior you would expect any adult would understand as petty and foolish, let alone one who's made it to the highest ranks of government.
So I think it's just not going to happen, Trump's statement on the matter notably didn't mention a supply chain risk designation. This suggests to me that Hegseth went off half cocked. The guy is a liability for Trump at this point, I'm guessing he won't last much longer.
seriously? :)
So one thing to call out here is that the assumption that DoW is working on specifically these use cases is not bullet proof. They simply may not want to share with anthropic exactly what they are working on for natsec issues. /we can't tell you/ could violate the terms.
It is also dumb that DoW accepted these terms in the first place.
[1] "only an act of Congress can formally change the name of a federal department." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347
(edited to add the url I omitted)
"You can just do things" (evil edition).
Deleted Comment
They will just have to recompete!
Trump has historically stiffed his contractors. Why do you think his administration would be any different with adhering to a contract?
No doubt the US Gov't will be using A I to perform automated military strikes without human supervision. and spying on US citizens (which they already have been doing for decades now).
Look no further than the case of patriot Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, exposed a massive NSA surveillance program in 2006, revealing that AT&T allowed the government to intercept, copy, and monitor massive amounts of American internet traffic. Klein discovered a secret, NSA-controlled room—Room 641A—inside an AT&T facility in San Francisco, which acted as a splitter for internet traffic.
Deleted Comment
Anthropic wouldn't have walked away from a multi million contract if their two redlines could be respected. OpenAI on the other hand is a fast, willing and ready company. I would love to see Anthropic's proposed contract
In our agreement, we protect our red lines through a more expansive, multi-layered approach. We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections. This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law.
We believe strongly in democracy. Given the importance of this technology, we believe that the only good path forward requires deep collaboration between AI efforts and the democratic process. We also believe our technology is going to introduce new risks in the world, and we want the people defending the United States to have the best tools.
Our agreement includes:
1. Deployment architecture. This is a cloud-only deployment, with a safety stack that we run that includes these principles and others. We are not providing the DoW with “guardrails off” or non-safety trained models, nor are we deploying our models on edge devices (where there could be a possibility of usage for autonomous lethal weapons).
Our deployment architecture will enable us to independently verify that these red lines are not crossed, including running and updating classifiers.
2. Our contract. Here is the relevant language:
The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control, nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by a human decisionmaker under the same authorities. Per DoD Directive 3000.09 (dtd 25 January 2023), any use of AI in autonomous and semi-autonomous systems must undergo rigorous verification, validation, and testing to ensure they perform as intended in realistic environments before deployment.
For intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives requiring a defined foreign intelligence purpose. The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities. The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
My speculation is the "business records" domestic surveillance loophole Bush expanded (and that Palantir is build to service). That's usually how the government double-speaks its very real domestic surveillance programs. "It's technically not the government spying on you, it's private companies!" It's also why Hegseth can claim Anthropic is lying. It's not about direct government contracts. It's about contractors and the business records funnel.
Of course they can just say - we aren’t, Palantir is.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47180540
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
Deleted Comment
What will the new American reich accomplish?
It's insane how numb I am becoming to these blurry thin lines
It's pretty clear that Trump wants to maximize his take over of USA for himself.
Dead Comment
This whole thing seems like people talking past each other, and that there’s something being left unsaid.
Anthropic doesn’t make a product that would assist with kill drones, and they don’t have the right to deny subpoenas.
I take that to mean they don't want the military using Claude to decide who to kill. As a hyperbolic yet frankly realistic example, they don't want Claude to make a mistake and direct the military to kill innocent children accidentally identified as narco-terrorists.
At least, that's the most charitable interpretation of everything going on. I suspect they are also worried that the sitting administration wants to use AI to help them execute a full autocratic takeover of the United States, so they're attempting to kill one of the world's most innovative companies to set an example and pressure other AI labs into letting their technology be used for such purposes.
Where is all the weird misinformation in these comments coming from?
Hegseth objected to guardrails being "woke". Something about "curly haired" almost-men telling him how he can use his "war fighters".
I speculate that Trump and Hegseth were both late to the realization that AI could unwind, for example, the next Panama Papers, and are doing this to try to demonstrate power to the industry. Musk tried to explain all this, but they actually encountered him as "autistic". This all looks like a disjointed conversation because we can see slightly more of the future than them.
SCOTUS says POTUS is above the law, so POTUS has collected $4B in bribe / protection money since taking office 13 months ago. Anthropic has lots of money at the moment. Why should they be allow to keep it?
Since they didn't pay off the president (enough?), his goons are going to screw with their revenue and run a PR smear campaign.
Once you realize it only has to do with Trump's personal finances, and nothing to do with national security or the rule of law, then all the administration's actions make perfect rational sense.
Open question: How much should a congress-critter charge Trump for a favorable vote? (The check should come with a presidential pardon in the envelope, of course...)
Dead Comment
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/defense-depart...
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-c...
Congress is negligent in not reigning this kind of thing in. We’re rapidly falling down so many slippery semantic slopes.
For this administration the law isn't something that binds them, but something they can use against others.
Dead Comment
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-intell...
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”.
Obviously the DoD would not want limited use. Strange they don't make their own given their specific needs.
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.
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.
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.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Anthropic is holding firm on incredibly weak red lines. No mass surveillance for Americans, ok for everyone else, and ok to automatic war machines, just not fully unmanned until they can guarantee a certain quality.
This should be a laughably spineless position. But under this administration it is taken as an affront to the president and results in the government lashing out.
It's probably in Anthropic's interest to throw grok to these clowns and watch them fail to build anything with it for 3 years.
Also, every other company has bent the knee and kissed the ring. And the trump admin will absolutely do everything they can to not appear weak and harm Anthropic. If it was so easy to act principled, don't you think other companies would've refused too? Eg Apple
And there is real harm here. You're reading about it - they get labeled a supply chain risk. This is negative and very tangible
Dead Comment
Blood is on their hands already
What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?
More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?
How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)
P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.
In fact, as a patriotic American veteran, I'd be ok with Anthropic moving to Europe. It might be better for Claude and AGI, which are overriding issues for me.
Rutger Bregman @rcbregman
This is a huge opportunity for Europe. Welcome Anthropic with open arms. Roll out the red carpet. Visa for all employees.
Europe already controls the AI hardware bottleneck through ASML. Add the world's leading AI safety lab and you have the foundations of an AI superpower.
https://x.com/rcbregman/status/2027335479582925287
Anthropic made it quite clear they are cool with spying in general, just not domestic spying on Americans, and their "no killbots" pledge was asterisked with "because we don't believe the technology is reliable enough for those stakes yet". The implication being that they absolutely would do killbots once they think they can nail the execution (pun intended).
I suppose you could say they're taking the high road relative to their peers, but that's an extremely low bar.
For Americans and international researchers it's easy to get visas there quickly. It's not far at all for Americans to relocate to or visit. Electricity is cheap and clean. Canada has the most college educated adults per capita. The country's commitment to liberalism, and free markets, is also seeming more steadfast than the US at this point in time.
Canada faces obstacles with its much smaller VC ecosystem, its smaller domestic market, and the threat of US economic aggression. Canada's recent trade deals are likely to help there.
I say this all as an American who is loyal to American values first and foremost. If the US wants to move away from its core values I hope other countries, like Canada or the EU, can carry on as successful examples for the US to eventually return to.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
I'm sure this doesn't apply to you since you're not Lord Kelvin. On the other hand, people like Peter Norvig state in a popular AI textbook that, for example, they don't know why similar concepts appear close by in the vector space, so maybe you just know something other people don't.
The right has far more talk of violence, true, but a lot of that is targeted rhetoric to keep voters riled up, and it’s not aimed at American businesses. I’d be surprised if even a third of Republicans supported anything more than not doing business with Anthropic. Even the Nvidia shakedown got a ton of criticism and that’s just money.
But how do you even begin to discuss that Tweet or this topic without talking about ideology and to contextualize this with other seemingly unrelated things currently going on in the US?
I genuinely don't think I'm conversationally agile enough to both discuss this topic while still able to avoid the political/ideological rabbit-hole.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
If a commenter who supports the government makes the same argument that the government is making, the guidelines tell us to assume good faith.
My conclusion is that any topic where a commenter might be making a bad faith argument is outside the scope of Hacker News.
This is more for “assume op is not a troll” rather than “assume Donald trump never took part on Epstein’s parties”.
I’ve never taken it to apply to anything other than the interaction with other commenters.
Politics and ideology are not off topic, provided the subject matter is of interest, or "gratifying", to colleagues in the tech/start-up space.
What's important is that we don't use rhetoric, bad faith or argumentation to force our views on others. But expressing our opinions about how policy affects technology and vice versa has always been welcome, in my observation.
So, what do you think about the US government's decision, and why?
Everything is politics and "ideology"
Our whole society runs on technology. All tech is inherently political.
A "no politics" stance is merely an endorsement of the status quo.
HN likes to pretend otherwise, especially when it's inconvenient.
Don't you ever get tired of spouting that grade school "muh capitalism bad" pablum, of being what Lenin supposedly called a "useful idiot"? Also, who are the "we" who you think should "take back" the word hacking? In what way would this be "taking back" instead of "taking over"? If you think it should be "extremely political and ideological" it would surely be the latter. Would your definition of hacking have room for those who dared to venture beyond your "extremely political and ideological" boundaries or those who just want to hack without needing to wear the right buttons, pins and clothes?
Signed, a grey-bearded hacker.
Dead Comment
This is the new McCarthyism. Do what the administration says, or you will be blacklisted, or worse.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has DoD contracts. If that language is enforced broadly, then Claude gets kicked off Bedrock, Vertex, and potentially Azure… which is where all the enterprise revenue lives. Claude cannot survive on $200/mo individual powerusers. The math just doesn’t math.
Anthropic is going to be fine. The DoD is going to walk this back and pretend it never happened to save face.
Also, AWS has a long history of rolling over when politicians make noise about AWS customers, going back to when Joe Lieberman casually asked Bezos to please stop supporting Wikileaks.
The designation only applies to projects that touch the federal government, or software developed specifically for the federal government.
Contractors can still use Claude internally in their business, so long as it is not used in government work directly.
A complete ban would be adding Anthropic to the NDAA, which requires congress.
The DoD designation allows the DoD to make contractors certify that Anthropic is not used in the fulfillment of the government work.
" Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."
Is that just his fantasy or?
I work in the enterprise SaaS and cybersecurity industry. There is no way to guarantee that amongst any FedRAMP vendor (which is almost every cybersecurity and enterprise SaaS or on their roadmap).
Almost all FedRAMP products I've built, launched, sold, or funded were the same build as the commerical offering, but with siloed data and network access.
This means the entire security and enterprise SaaS industry will have to shift away from Anthropic unless the DPA is invoked and management is changed.
More likely, I think the DoD/DoW and their vendors will force Anthropic to retrain a sovereign model specifically for the US Gov.
Edit: Can't reply
> This is the core assertion that is not clear nor absolute.
If Walmart can forcibly add verbiage banning AWS from it's vendors and suppliers, the US government absolutely can. At least with Walmart they will accept a segmented environment using GCP+Azure+OCI. Retraining a foundational model to be Gov compliant is a project that would cost billions.
By declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk, it will now be contractually added by everyone becuase no GRC team will allow Anthropic anywhere in a company that even remotely touches FedRAMP and it will be forcibly added into contracts.
No one can guarantee that your codebase was not touched by Claude or a product using Claude in the background, so this will be added contractually.
That label forbids contractors on DoD contracts for billing DoD for Anthropic, or including Anthropic as part of their DoD solution.
So - AWS can keep claude on bedrock, but can't provide claude to the DoD under its DoD contracts
I am both dumb and without access to Claude, thus I must ask: My fellow smart HN'ers, what kind of impacts would this likely have on the economy?
Has a lot of money and resources not been pumped into Anthropic (albeit likely less than OpenAI)? I imagine such a decision would not be the ROI that many investors expected.