Remix.run Logo
tgma 9 hours ago

[flagged]

thewebguyd 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

SatvikBeri 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, great! Sounds like this is exactly what Anthropic wants and hopes for; for their technology to minimally benefit warfighting. Otherwise, are you suggesting they are so evil that they were just advertising those the terms to fool us and virtue signal?

> has never been invoked against an American company.

There's always a first. I am assuming it is not illegal to do that. It's a completely reasonable business decision to ensure your supply chain does not depend on things that may change against your goals. For example, you don't want to build or depend on an open source platform that you know is gonna rug pull, if you count on it remaining open source, do you? American or otherwise.

nullocator 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Anthropic was not anticipated injured party with standing in American courts, until today, now they are very much injured and do have standing to bring a whole slew of lawsuits against the administration who is operating illegally and unconstitutionally against an american company. This seems like the start of the battle for anthropic not the end. The government signed contracts they don't get to just reneg whenever they fucking please because cheeto bantito in chief and his unhinged alcoholic secretary of defense are unreliable liars

techblueberry 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The governments supply chain is like 80% of the US

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

pron 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The US government is applying severe sanctions against a US company that does not "influence their supply chain". Donald Trump believes the economy is great and at the same time declares economic emergencies to justify doing certain things. It could be true that Anthropic's products are useless for the DoD because of the products' safeguards, but that doesn't mean they're a risk to the US government.

As to this being 100% legal, I'm not so sure (not a lawyer). It might not be a criminal offese, but there's a whole category of abuse of power that this may fall under if Anthropic is put under a certain status without real justification. Many powers given to the executive branch are not absolute and can't be applied arbitrarily, but require justification. Anthropic might be able to sue the government for declaring them a "supply-chain risk" without sufficient justification. E.g. they could claim that not being sufficiently patriotic in the eyes of the administration does not constitute a risk, and that since their not the sole supplier of the tech, they were not trying to strong arm the government to do anything.

tgma 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree with your second paragraph; we will have to see to what degree the "viral" effect of Supply Chain Risk designation goes (perhaps you contract the DoD under an LLC that has a supply chain firewall from your company) and also look forward to seeing how this would be handled in court, but I would not automatically be dismissive of this being totally legal.

> does not "influence their supply chain"

I would be wary of making this conclusion. Obviously it could conceivably influence the supply chain when you build on top of their model. If you look at the type of risks enumerated in DoD guidelines, it is not just "oh this software has vulnerability" which is what started the discussion in this subthread in the first place. There are many kinds of risks DoD needs to address, none are particularly new; including Sustainment Risk. The closest thing I remember to this case was Sun Java "no use in nuclear facility" EULA term, which LLM suggests was ignored by DoE/D because that was interpreted as a "limitation on warranty" not a "restriction of use."

Me1000 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What is this "law" you speak of?

I understand 'goals' and 'means to an end', but this concept of "law" evades me.

pron 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

Analemma_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

kalkin 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It appears that when it comes to Jesse Jackson you're entirely capable of understanding how a shakedown works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47046514

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I am entirely capable of doing that. Your point?

kalkin 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm providing information for other readers to evaluate your good faith, or lack thereof.

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a nice straw man you got there. I don't mind you characterizing the negotiation however you want. That's not the debate. Call it "shakedown" or "mafia" as someone else mentioned, or whatnot (although it is appears the company that was trying to grandstand the elected US Government by dictating their own terms was Anthropic, not the other way around, but I digress). The question is was it a breach of contract or just a tough negotiation?

Companies have gone out of business due to a big customer pulling the contract. Imagination Technologies comes to mind. This is not a rare thing in business.

danorama 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I have to admit, “accept this unilateral change to the contract or we will use the full power of the US government to destroy your company” is certainly a tough negotiation stance. You got that part right.

tgma 7 hours ago | parent [-]

How did you get the "destroy your company" part? If HN sentiment is any evidence, they are even more popular than before. GPU is a constrained resource and I am sure they are going to have enough business to saturate what they got. I'm certain they would have just removed (and still will remove) two paragraphs from the terms had it really "destroyed their company."

> full power of the US government

Haha, I can assure you that is not even close to the full power of US government. Ask the crypto people during Biden admin for just a little more power (still not even close to "full.")

danorama 7 hours ago | parent [-]

"Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."

For a company of Anthropic's size, this may very well be a death sentence, even if their work has nothing to do with the military supply chain. They could have just canceled the contract, but they wanted to go full Darth Vader on them to prove a point in case anyone else thought about "negotiating" "voluntarily" with the federal government.

tgma 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't think Anthropic is going out of business any minute now, do you? This is just rhetoric. Affirmative evidence is they would just remove two paragraphs if they were.

jibal 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I am not aware

People have noticed.

> It's called negotiation in business.

The bad faith in this statement alone is almost equal to the sum of it in the rest of your comments.

rolymath 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm just curious, do you understand that the DoD isn't saying it won't do business with Anthropic. Its saying it will also ban any company that does business with the DoD (so 90% of large enterprises?) from doing business from Anthropic. Are you aware of this?

tgma 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I am aware. That is not entirely unreasonable if it touches the actual Supply Chain tree. I do fully sympathize that the extent of legality of that rule should be clarified/restricted if say, Claude is used by a separate division unrelated to DoD business. I think courts will resolve this, likely fairly quickly via an injunction.

Hikikomori 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hegseth managed to get through art of the deal? Maybe he made a drinking game out of it, a shot per page.

Analemma_ 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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?

Analemma_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know why you keep bringing up breach of contract, it is not relevant to this discussion at all. No, the government did not breach the contract AFAIK, they just decided they didn't like it anymore, and instead of either withdrawing or entering into a negotiation about it, they decided to use threats to try and get their terms at metaphorical gunpoint.

The actual terms of the contract aren't even relevant, this is purely a matter of tort law and whether you can bully someone into a new contact because you woke up one day and decided you didn't like the one you agreed to.

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Because you implied it here:

> Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend.

They want to "forcibly amend" is either within their rights per original contract, or not. One is fair game, the other is not.

wasabi991011 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I did not read that as implying breach of contract, and AI don't understand your explanation.

Isn't agreeing to amend a contract always within their rights?

ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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".

Analemma_ 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's actually even worse than that: Anthropic already agrees that the Pentagon can walk away from the contract and stop using Claude if they want to, there's no dispute there. What the Pentagon wants is to force Anthropic into a new set of terms which cannot be refused.

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

gip 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

cholantesh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This rather implies that simply being elected casts a binding on officials that forces them to pursue popular will with their mandate.

verdverm 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.