| ▲ | charcircuit 2 days ago |
| What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk? |
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is this question supposed to have anything to do with the situation at hand, where what they did was refuse to perform certain categories of service? |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >was refuse to perform certain categories of service? Anthropic wanted to have the power over what the government could or couldn't do. If there was any false positive on something that was supposed to be allowed the government would have to work with Anthropic and get permission from them to do something they are allowed to do. This to me is the risk that Anthropic was giving to the government. If Anthropic expresses that they want this level of power over what the military can do I think that such intention can justify being a risk. That is how it relates to my comment. | | |
| ▲ | sashank_1509 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, anthropic wanted that power through a legal agreement. Not by spying on the pentagon , or training their AI model to lie to them etc, which seems more appropriate for supply chain risk. The government in this case can just cancel its legal agreement with Anthropic and move on, which was always its expected move. Trying to unilaterally destroy Anthropics business for a contractual disagreement is not fair and I’m glad the judicial is pushing back. | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anthropic wanted power over what the government would do with the servers Anthropic runs. That's not weird and that's not being a risk. It's normal business negotiation. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is not about the usage restrictions in the agreement. As shown by OpenAI's agreement getting similar restrictions. It is about Anthropic's attitude in how Anthropic has the ultimate power in its usage. If RTX started demanding that they should be the ones to decide who Tomahawk missiles can be used on when they are launched. And RTX said that the government should file a support ticket to appeal a decision, then I would not be surprised that such actions could lead to considering them to be a supply risk. Even if it was just part of "business negotiation." It is the mindset that the other company has which clearly is showing signs of risk. | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What the court found is that Anthropic demanded no such thing. The government lied and claimed that they did as part of their attempt to punish Anthropic. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It was a preliminary injunction. The purpose of such an injunction is not to establish what actually happened. We will need to wait for this to progress further to learn more information about what actually happened. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | joe5150 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The military can work with someone else's product or use a bit of their trillion-dollar budget to come up with their own. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they can work with someone else. Marking them as a supply risk is one way they can avoid using them and instead use someone else for their needs. So now it seems like we are in a limbo where the government knows that Anthropic is a risk to work with, but they can't official put them on a list that states that. | | |
| ▲ | joe5150 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They actually don't need to sanction Anthropic as a "supply risk" in order to not contract with them, and doing so is obviously an insane overreach. | |
| ▲ | MeetingsBrowser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you explain how Anthropic is a risk to work with? | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Put simply, the military should have to ask Anthropic for permission each time it needs intelligence. Time is of the essence for the military and having to argue over these things in the moment is not good. These things should be figured out ahead of time and or properly reviewed afterwards. Working with such a company that demands to embed themself into this process with the power to deny any request is too much power. The risk to the military for companies working with Anthropic is that they can get delays or outages when there shouldn't be which can jeopardize time sensitive operations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | salawat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| To act as a safety valve against foreign companies acting as proxies for an adversary. Not for use against an American company that won't let you retroactively violate already agreed to terms. Anthropic isn't jeopardizing the supply chain, they simply will not let the Government force them into providing services they otherwise wouldn't. |
|
| ▲ | verdverm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The "mark" was capricious and vindictive. That's at the heart of why it was injuncted. |
|
| ▲ | nutjob2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Google the "arbitrary and capricious" legal standard. And try to stick to the facts about Anthropic's actions. |
|
| ▲ | mexicocitinluez 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What's the point of the Constitution when the government can ignore it at their discretion? |
| |
|
| ▲ | 0x3f 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, you could also say what's the point of laws when courts can interpret them however they like? There's never a neat answer in such multi-valent systems, is there? |
|
| ▲ | genthree 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I recommend reading the law on which this action was based. |
| |
| ▲ | enoint 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There’s a narrow law in which Congress grants the Secretary decisions about security. Then there’s the executive posting on social media. While it would be nice if the administration followed the law, this case is really about manipulation via social media. |
|
