So the Pentagon is strongarming a company into cooperation? That reminds of how my alcoholic neighbor used to treat his family. It's almost as if someone let a mean drunk be in charge of the Pentagon.
Without reading every word of every embedded tweet, a part missing from the conversation is HOW they are strongarming.
It isn't in private. It's a public threat in the court of public opinion to apply societal pressure on the company. They are attempting to reshape Anthropic's decision into a tribal one, and hurt the brand's reputation within the tribe unless it capitulates.
> Without reading every word of every embedded tweet, a part missing from the conversation is HOW they are strongarming.
There are two possibilities:
> The government would likely argue that dropping the contractual restrictions doesn't change the product. Claude is the same model with the same weights and the same capabilities—the government just wants different contractual terms. […] Anthropic would likely argue the opposite: that its usage restrictions are part of what Claude is as a commercial service, and that Claude-without-guardrails is a product it doesn't offer to anyone. On this view, the government is asking for a new product, and the statute doesn't clearly authorize that.
and
> The more extreme possibility would be the government compelling Anthropic to retrain Claude—to strip the safety guardrails baked into the model's training, not merely modify the access terms. Here the characterization question seems easier: a retrained model looks much more like a new product than dropping contractual restrictions does. Admittedly, the government has a textual argument in its favor: the DPA's definitions of "services" include “development … of a critical critical technology item,” and the government could frame retraining Claude as exactly that. Whether courts would accept that framing, especially in light of the major questions doctrine, is another matter.
A more extreme situation: could the DPA be used to nationalize the model so the government has ownership, and then allow access to more amenable AI players?
There's a third possibility. Anthropic's management desires cover to remove limiters on some of its products for some of its customers. The Pentagon is more than happy to play the bad guy if it means that they get something that's even more useful to them than what they would have gotten otherwise.
"We made these compromises because national defense is really super important." has historically proven to be a really effective explanation for tech companies that want to abandon some of their previously-stated "nice and friendly" values in exchange for money.
When I imagine a world with this scenario being the truth, I am less confused than when I imagine a world with the alternatives. I find this to be a fantastic and historically reliable (for me) heuristic.
That being said, I imagine it also factors into internal dialogue that allows those higher up to explain to the boots-on-the-ground researchers that "no you're not working for the military industrial complex, they're just stealing your work that was intended to feed the orphans!"
While Rationalist techniques can be useful (and their stated objective of "Your brain is bad at thinking carefully. Learn how to make it do better." is a very good one), I'm always cautious when deploying their techniques. The Rats were prone to ascending very, very far up their own assholes... so much so that a huge chunk of the US-based folks got pretty thoroughly captured by lightly disguised 1960's-era Hippie woo and mysticism.
One would think that "Make sure to frequently evaluate whether or not the techniques you're using are actually effective, and adjust your actions if they're not." would be something that member of that group would do automatically as a matter of habit. But, it turns out that many folks shut off their brains when they get to wrap things in jargon as extraneous as it is impenetrable and slap ass-pulled percentages and betting receipts on to the exterior.
The top line of the article gives a big old hint: Anthropic signed a contract with the “Killing people” part of the government and now they’re putting on a show. No contract, no leverage.
The only threat the Pentagon has is to terminate the contract.
Realistically that's an empty threat, especially with the mid-terms coming up and Trump's attention span. The real threat, the actionable one, is the loss of a $200 mil contract. I suspect that the result here will be some highly visible face-saving compromise for Anthropic that means very little.
It seems like an unfortunate reality that being a government contractor puts any company in any country at the whim of their government. AFAIK every government has 'pulled the rug out' from at least some contractors at some point.
The whole government 'strong-arms' many of its counter-parties in a variety of situations; this is unfortunately nothing new, and far from an innovation by Hegseth. A more clearly illegal example (because the government was acting as a regulator, not a purchaser) is Operation Choke Point, though there are many others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
As if governments throughout history haven't constantly used threats to gain leverage? No need to take a personal shot at the guy in charge when this is SOP throughout the administration.
I don't like the "guy in charge" anyway but it's not clear the other major party would stand united against this if they were in power. While I believe they'd probably have hearings and debate it more, this may be one of those issues where the defense establishment usually gets what it wants no matter which party is in control. One party protesting an issue when they're in the minority can just be performative "point scoring" against their opposition - not a guarantee of what result they'd participate in engineering if they were in power.
Much like FISA court-enabled unaccountable surveillance, this may be another of the increasing number of things where neither major party is will actually stop it. In terms of real-world outcomes, it doesn't much matter whether the party in control has just enough of their members (in the safest seats) vote with the minority to pass an unpopular measure or if they all vote for it. When the votes are stage managed in advance, the count being close is merely optics to further the narrative that the two major parties represent meaningfully different outcomes on every major issue.
It isn't in private. It's a public threat in the court of public opinion to apply societal pressure on the company. They are attempting to reshape Anthropic's decision into a tribal one, and hurt the brand's reputation within the tribe unless it capitulates.