Supply chain risk seems a massive over-reaction, but understandable that the government doesn't want to commit to Anthropic controlled software for any critical military application if they can't 100% rely on Anthropic support in being able to use it as they see fit.

▲

timcobb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 100% rely on

that's the mobster-loyalty mentality, and it's not how successful (read: desirable for the most people) governments function

▲

p-e-w 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every government on Earth has legislation that allows it to force companies (and citizens) to do its bidding under certain circumstances. That’s pretty much the definition of a government.

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The point is this not being the first tool in the toolbox. Other competitors have shown they are more than willing to build weapons of death (OpenAI) so as the government you put them as the preferred contractor.

What the orange turd is going is rather petty bullshit in a market where many options exist.

	▲	cindyllm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

all_factz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then the government should have invoked that legislation.

	▲	CodeWriter23 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The DoD is empowered to determine its own supply chain risks by...wait for it...legislation.
	▲	HarHarVeryFunny 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They don't need to - there are alternatives, and do you really want to do business with a supplier that is hostile to your needs unless you have to?

▲

lukewarm707 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yes, but anthropic really is an exception.

it is a bizarre company which also inherits the authoritarian infrastructure of cloud services.

that is: remote control of the software, spying on customers, etc.

▲

orangecat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

remote control of the software, spying on customers, etc.

The military ran Anthropic models on their own infrastructure; Anthropic had no access to it. "They might disable Claude in the middle of an emergency" was never a possibility.

	▲	lukewarm707 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		DOD used claude via palantir. palantir runs on AWS, supposedly DOD IL6. anthropic did a prigozhin, got cocky and went behind the DOD's back to palantir and asked them questions about the use of claude. a big tyrant does not like to be usurped or undermined by a little tyrant. after pissing off the DOD by trying to get palantir to rat out classified deployments, dario went to the pentagon and behaved like himself in front of pete hegseth. anthropic was not going to come back from that. fable is on AWS govcloud. but anthropic get the chat logs. specifically section F: [https://www.anthropic.com/legal/service-specific-terms]. this is an anthropic requirement. notably, fable is not on IL5 or above. the best you can get is palantir AIP opus 5 in AWS IL5. i suspect, because of anthropic demanding that AWS rat out its customers.

▲

ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> understandable that the government doesn't want to commit to Anthropic controlled software

But that's not at issue here. Obviously everyone agrees that the Pentagon can issue RFQ's to whatever specifications it wants. They can buy whatever they want, for the same reason that you or I are free to sell whatever we want.

The subject at hand is an attempt to use national security regulatory power to coerce Anthropic into selling a product it doesn't want to sell.

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The subject at hand is an attempt to use national security regulatory power to coerce Anthropic into selling a product it doesn't want to sell.

It would be naive to think that a private company could deny the government access to any tech if they want it for military or surveillance etc usage. In this case the government isn't forcing Anthropic to do it, they have alternatives and are perhaps making an example of Anthropic for refusing.

You could even make a case that the "supply chain risk" designation DOES make sense. If Anthropic are opposed to certain uses of their software, then doesn't that potentially impact companies that are part of the supply chain as well?

▲

cmdli 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

There are plenty of companies that are opposed to certain operations of the US military and refuse to sell to the US military on those grounds. None of them are considered a supply chain risk because that's not what a supply chain risk is.

A supply chain risk is specifically an entity that is likely to maliciously sabotage the US military's operations, such as Chinese companies that are controlled by the CCP. It is not simply a decision to "not buy from this company", but rather a wide-ranging decision that this particular company is a national security threat.

	▲	Jtsummers 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Or is known to have weaknesses that might permit such actions. Microsoft permitting Chinese workers to maintain DOD systems presented a supply chain risk, even though MS themselves were not the ones likely to behave maliciously. Instead their policies were so stupid that they invited potential malicious actors into the facilities.

▲

parineum 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is this coersion?

Is it coersion when people refuse to buy anything but free range chicken eggs?

DoD just refuses to buy a product. Anthropic just lost a customer because their product didn't fit the requirements of the customer.

▲

knollimar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're saying no one who works with them can eat non free range chickens too, no?

	▲	parineum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		And all those companies can choose not to work with them too.

▲

Jtsummers 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> DoD just refuses to buy a product.

That's not what happened. DOD bought a product, with terms precluding specific applications of the product. DOD decided to change the terms, vendor said no. DOD threw a hissyfit (well, Hegseth did) and said, "No one can use it if they do business with us!"

If they had just terminated their contracts with Anthropic, then there would likely be no issue beyond having to pay out any penalties for terminating a contract early. They could then go to Grok (as they did) and OpenAI and used them instead. Or even kept the contract with Anthropic and its limitations, and just used the others for the cases where Anthropic was not permitted.