| ▲ | telotortium 15 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
One thing I’ve never heard a good answer to: If Anthropic is a supplier not to the Department of Defense itself, but to Palantir, why isn’t supply chain risk the proper designation (assuming the government’s concerns with Anthropic having authority over military missions is valid)? As for whether code written with Claude Code should be so considered - if it’s just code that is subject to human review, I would argue that this use shouldn’t be a supply chain risk. But with Claude Code PR Review and similar products, the chance that an AI product (not limiting to Anthropic here) could own a load-bearing part of the lifecycle of a critical piece of code becomes much larger, and deserves scrutiny. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure that "supply chain risk" is even the right term to be discussing. What Hegseth/Trump want to do is not just stop Anthropic models from being used by any military supplier pursuant to goods/services they are providing to the military, but rather say that if you do business with the military then you must not use Anthropic at all, even if that usage is entirely unrelated to your military contracts. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | xvector 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> why isn’t supply chain risk the proper designation Because you can't designate a company a SCR because you don't like the contract you signed with them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||