“the military said no and therefore doesn't want anthropic used anywhere in their supply line”

It’s clearly a punitive measure and has nothing to do with national security.

If a supplier uses Anthropic to develop a product, how does that pose a risk to the DoD or national security? The DoD can specify that a third party system can’t rely on Anthropic for DoD use without designating the company a supply risk. It was very clear that the administration was punishing the company for saying “no”.

▲

frumplestlatz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Anthropic took the position that our military’s decision making power should be subordinate to Anthropic’s constraints.

Any dependency on a company that thinks they have that moral authority and has the technical means to enforce it is absolutely a risk to the supply chain.

If you want to blame someone or something for this, we should start with Dario and “effective altruism”.

▲

Dylan16807 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Anthropic took the position that our military’s decision making power should be subordinate to Anthropic’s constraints.

Not at all. They want their product kept out of specific decisions because it's not capable.

▲

testdelacc1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But why can’t the military just not use Anthropic? Why can’t the DoD say “ok we’re going with a different vendor”? Even if you find Anthropic’s stance distasteful, why support taking punitive action on Anthropic?

▲

satvikpendem 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I feel like in this thread no one is understanding what supply chain risk designation is. The government can just not use Anthropic, and that's exactly what they're doing, and they are not using it so much that they don't want Anthropic anywhere in their chain of supply. It's not necessarily punitive, the government is just covering their tracks so that if somewhere in their supply chain Anthropic exists, they want to remove them. They are complying with Anthropic's demands to not be used in war and the DoD says, okay, we won't use you anywhere and also enforce that we won't use you, just like you wanted.

	▲	rhdunn 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's going to make things complicated w.r.t. software used anywhere within and by the DoD: 1. the linux kernel has patches created by and security vulnerabilities identified by Claude/Anthropic; 2. same with other software like SQLite and rsync.
	▲	Jtsummers 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> They are complying with Anthropic's demands to not be used in war There was no such demand from Anthropic. Why are you making things up? EDIT: Honestly, the rest of your comment is even stranger. You're starting from a false premise, a strange belief about what the designation is meant for, but you do end up providing a wonderful demonstration of your opening sentence for yourself at least. You definitely don't know what you're talking about. > It's not necessarily punitive, the government is just covering their tracks so that if somewhere in their supply chain Anthropic exists, they want to remove them. This reminds me of an old comment here where some idiot claimed that suicide is illegal so police are allowed to stop people from killing themselves. No, if Anthropic doesn't want their systems involved in war (that's a thing you made up, again, just to be clear) then they do not need to be designated a supply chain risk to "protect them" or whatever drivel you come up with next. The correct response from the DOD would be to terminate contracts with Anthropic, and that's it. Then Anthropic would be responsible for ensuring that any contracts with other parties keep them out of war (again, not a thing they said they want, just your fiction). This is how it works for all other software systems where people don't want their work involved in wars or used by the police or whatever. Designating them a supply chain risk was punitive. Only fools think otherwise. > I feel like in this thread no one is understanding what supply chain risk designation is. I wouldn't say "no one" understands, but you certainly don't.
	▲	joshuamorton 5 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Anthropic said "we don't want to be used as part of kill chain decision-making" (actually it may have been even more specifically autonomous/unmanned kill chain decision making) The DoD responded not by saying "alright, we will use OpenAI for our kill-chain uses" but by saying "Boeing is no longer allowed to use Claude Code".

▲

dogleash 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why can’t the DoD say “ok we’re going with a different vendor”?

That's exactly what they're doing. It turns out the DoD is a really big bureaucracy and has process to make sure they thoroughly exclude a vendor and transitive dependencies on that same vendor.