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.