personally, i think that anthropic is a supply chain risk. if the ceo writes 'pace the frontier' and wants to be in charge of the product, it's very risky (to the customer).

by analogy it would be like the us military renting all m4 carbines from a political party.

anthropic treat customers very badly. they have claude lecture the user about the moral law according to anthropic. they change the product all the time. they have safety refusals to degrade functionality, they have mandatory logging so they spy on how it is used.

it's unusable for a serious application.

on top of that it is unsurprising that a big tyrant does not take well to a little tyrant.

▲ hardbass 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Irrelevant. Then the government should just refrain from taking the contract, not use violent force to restrict Anthropic doing business.

▲ ilikehurdles 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Correct, from the government's perspective, anthropic is a risk to the supply chain and should not be included in sensitive government contracts.

▲

hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Thats too vast a scope. Whats not to say they start enforcing bans on Anthropic in any branch or usage of Anthropic of your company if your company has entered into a defense contract with the government for something?

▲

lukewarm707 3 hours ago | parent [-]

they should ban it, defense contractors shouldn't be using it XD.

fable 5.1 doesn't have any option to stop anthropic spying on it. you can't have that...anthropic contractors and actually the rationalist ea clowns themselves don't have security clearance

▲

hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Just saying so doesn't mean shit. The US government should ban you then because I deem you a risk and a terrorist threat.

	▲	lukewarm707 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		i say it, but you can confirm it yourself. not even AWS govcloud can offer fable without anthropic snooping. it is the only model with this problem. the pentagon can't force suppliers to require no snooping policies unless they designate the company a risk. other than those suppliers who are already working on classified projects and can't have dario write an essay on his blog about 'pace the f35' or 'missiles of loving grace. the adolescence of classified satellites.'

▲ lukewarm707 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i don't understand.

it is a supply chain risk, so they don't want it in the supply chain.

that's logical.

▲ hardbass 4 hours ago | parent [-]

They can just refuse to entertain contracts with them if they dislike it. Why issue a supply chain risk? Its clear and pure thuggery and blackmail.

▲ petu 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Devil's advocate, but Anthropic talks a lot about importance of alignment, so.. How can military ensure that model is NOT refusing to work just to be malicious?

Anthropic doesn't provide model w/o guardrails, suppliers have to use public version, newer model releases surely know about Anthropic standoff with the military.. how to prevent model from realizing that it's doing something for the military (supplier) and sandbagging and/or subtly sabotaging the results?

=====

DOD recommends sandbagging as defense mechanism against destination "attacks":

https://media.defense.gov/2026/Sep/08/2003992823/-1/-1/1/CSA...

Page 13

  When suspecting a malicious distillation campaign, consider varying changes to responses across requests to complicate response quality evaluations, such that the subtle changes avoid triggering obvious alerts. Reducing reasoning depth, presenting correct information with different reasoning, or stylistic inconsistencies may evade detection while reducing training usefulness.

  Avoid informing China-based AI company users suspected of distillation campaigns of a switch to a downgraded model. Informing malicious distillers would enable them to improve their defense evasions and indicate when to roll back training.

If that's seen as valid defense mechanism, then it's also a risk if used against them.

	▲	hardbass 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That would be stupidity of the government that caused this situation in the first place. Anthropics position was they wanted to have oversight before it was used to kill people. Anthropic was right. The us govt is fucking incompetent and managed to kill an entire girls school using "AI".

▲ lukewarm707 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

they issued the supply chain risk to get it out of the supply chain.

they don't want suppliers to use it because it is a supply chain risk. specifically, the risk is that it is unreliable.

the designation stops suppliers from using it.

it stops it from being in the supply chain.

▲ ilikehurdles 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is this a debate? Anthropic's AI was used in military/defense operations. When Anthropic discovered this and disclosed it publicly, they attempted to revoke access and went after the government demanding it not get used in such a way. This would be a supply chain risk to any government.

If Lockheed Martin disabled weapons systems when it discovered the Air Force using its fighters over Iranian airspace based on Lockheed's ideological views, I'm pretty sure they would be labeled a supply chain risk at minimum. What is the issue here?

	▲	hardbass 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The government canceling that specific contract with Anthropic is fine. It is too vast a scope to deny Anthropic to work with any other companies who also happen to be defense contractors. Lockheed Martin for example cannot be sure now if it won't be sued if some employee uses Anthropic for help with accounting or anything unrelated to defense.

▲ IX-103 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you're complaining that they have a bad product. A supply chain risk means something else entirely.

	▲	lukewarm707 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		i think it's a supply chain risk. anthropic nanny claude and spy on it, they have ego issues. if the dod use anthropic it is sort of like putin relying on prigozhin. prigozhin got ideas and tried to usurp putin. this did not end well for prigozhin.