[johnfn]

The writeup here[1] was pretty clear to me.

> *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic.

> *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one saying that the Pentagon shouldn’t work with them if it doesn’t want to. The Pentagon is the one trying to force Anthropic to sign the new contract.

[1]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pentagon-threatens-anth...

[Teknoman117]

I just wish there was a stronger source on this. I am inclined to agree you and the source you cited, but unfortunately

> [1] This story requires some reading between the lines - the exact text of the contract isn’t available - but something like it is suggested by the way both sides have been presenting the negotiations.

I deal with far too many people who won't believe me without 10 bullet-proof sources but get very angry with me if I won't take their word without a source :(

[johnfn]

That's a fair point, but I think Dario's quote in GP corroborates ACX's story quite well:

> "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."

[mrandish]

> "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."

While I agree with Anthropic's position on this regardless, the original contract wording does matter in terms of making either the government look even more unreasonable or Anthropic look a little less reasonable.

The issue is a subtle ambiguity in Dario's statement: "...have never been included in our contracts" because it leaves two possibilities: 1. those two conditions were explicitly mentioned and disallowed in the contract, or 2. they weren't in the contract itself - and are disallowed by Anthropic's Terms of Service and complying with the ToS is a condition in the contract (which would be typical).

If that's the case, then it matters if the ToS disallowed those two uses at the time the original contract was signed, or if the ToS was revised since signing. Anthropic is still 100% in the right if the ToS disallowed these uses at the time of signing and the ToS was an explicit condition of the contract, since contracts often loop in the ToS as a condition while not precluding the ToS being updated.

However, if the ToS was updated after contract signing and Anthropic added or expanded the wording of those two provisions, then the DoD, IMHO, has a tiny shred of justification to complain and stop using Anthropic. Of course, going much further and banning the entire US government (and contractors) from using Anthropic for any use, including all the ones where these two provisions don't matter - is egregiously punitive and shitty.

While the contract wording itself may be subject to NDA, it would be helpful if Anthropic's statements could be a bit more precise. For example, if Dario had said "have always been disallowed in our contracts" this ambiguity wouldn't exist.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It does not matter. If Anthropic had been precise in this narrow way, there would have been some other nitpick to raise.

You're trying desperately to find a way that things can be at least a little normal, and I really do get it. It would be great if such a way existed. But it doesn't. I recommend you take a social media break like I'm about to, take the time you need to mourn the era of normal politics, and come back with a full understanding that the US government is not pursuing normal policy objectives with bad decisions. They hate you and they hate me for not being on their side, and their primary goal is to ensure that we're as miserable as they can make us.

[drawnwren]

I'm in a weird spot where I do agree with your assessment of the core claim. But putting that aside, in the world where the DoW's claim _is_ correct -- I think you don't have any choice other than to designate them a supply chain risk.

Disregarding who is right or wrong for a moment, if the DoW are right (which I'm not personally inclined to believe, but we're ignoring that for the moment) -- how else can they avoid secondhand Claude poisoning?

Supposing they really want to use their software for things disallowed by Claude's (now or future) ToS, it seems like designating it a supply chain risk is the only way they can ensure that their contractors don't include Claude (either indirectly as a wrapper or tertially through use of generated code etc)

[mrandish]

> designating it a supply chain risk is the only way they can ensure that their contractors don't include Claude

I agree that if the DoW claim is correct (and I doubt it is), then, sure, the DoW dropping Anthropic and precluding the DoW's suppliers from using Anthropic for any DoW work would be expected. However, the "supply chain risk" designation they are deploying goes far beyond that to block Anthropic use by any supplier to any part of the entire U.S. government for anything.

For example, no one at Crayola can use Anthropic for anything because Crayola sells crayons to the Education Dept. The DoW already has much less draconian ways to restrict what their direct suppliers use to build things for military applications. But instead of addressing the actual risk in a normal measured way, they are choosing to use a nuke against a grenade-sized problem. This "supply chain risk" designation is rarely used and has never been used against a U.S. company. It's used against Chinese or Russian companies when in cases where there's credible risk of sabotage or espionage. That's why that particular designation always blocks all products from an entire company for any application by any part of the U.S. Government, contractors and suppliers (which is why it's never been used against a U.S. company).

[drawnwren]

One positive thing I will say about this administration is that they have really drawn into focus the difference between de jure and de facto law.

My hope is that this gets us some real concern for things that have been defended with de facto arguments (i.e. privacy) going forward.

edit: Anthropic argues that your Crayola analogy is fundamentally incorrect.

> Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-...

[edmundsauto]

How would this risk be mitigated by signing a contract? Seems like “supply chain poisoning as treason” is probably not going to stopped by a piece of paper. You either trust anthropic or you don’t but the deal has nothing to do with it.

[drawnwren]

Isn't the point that they aren't entering into a contract with them, they are just ensuring that none of their still trusted suppliers repackage Anthropic without their knowledge?

[spuz]

Also, Trump's own words complaining about being forced to stick to Anthropic's terms of service:

> The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution.

[rubyfan]

His M.O. is to accuse his opponent of the very thing he is doing. It’s the party of bad-faith.

[gcanyon]

This administration needs the benefit of the doubt always. This administration deserves the benefit of the doubt never.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Those people are dealing with you in bad faith, and you need to cut them off before they try to overthrow your government again.

[webnrrd2k]

Yeah, that should have been in the contract too -- no using our software to overthrow the government or to implement a fascist state.

[to11mtm]

I think a big question mark here, is whether anything said on Anthropic's side if in the framing of "We have a thing going on that we are trying to communicate around where a canary notice if it existed would no longer be updated"

[hirako2000]

It isn't about commercial agreements, it's about patriotism. The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated. Here it's a question or virtue.

The Pentagon feels it isn't Anthropic to set boundaries as to how their tech is used (for defense) since it can't force its will, then it bans doing business with them.

[corford]

If anthropic is saying “you can use our models for anything other than domestic spying or autonomous weapons” and the pentagon replies “we will use other models then”, I'd say Anthropic are the patriots here...

[6510]

I like the endless consideration for spying on allies. or wait...

[corford]

One battle at a time

[Loughla]

I'm guessing you're being down voted because people don't know if you think that's a good thing or not. I do not think it's a good thing. Do you?

[hirako2000]

I absolutely do not think that's a good thing. Was stating some sad facts.

[Loughla]

I had the same thing happen to me when I posted about how unbridled capitalism requires external costs in the form of pollution and what not. I didn't make it clear that I thought it was a terrible truth.

Once the hive decides you're being serious without checking, they turn the down vote button into an I disagree with you button.

This is actually one of the reasons I left Reddit. I hate to see it here.

[YeezyMode]

It likely helps to take in the cultural moment or context around the statements or the nature of the statements you're making. It's fine to state a fact but it's also helpful to make it clear whether you are saying "it is what it is " or "I wish things were different" or "I am doing X, Y, and Z to try and help and I recommend others do so". Jokes are an exception and I think misunderstandings are fine there. But it's unreasonable to think that on the Internet, people will "check to see if you are serious".

[hirako2000]

The comment was serious. It didn't feel the need to take a side.

The DoD declaration reflects a certain context, we had the patriotic act, a whistleblower exiled in Russia for defending the constitution, etc etc. We didn't need to wait a MAGA movement to be expecting such comment from the DoD.

If hackernews threads turn into mouthpieces for opinions then we have no use posting anything in here.

The comments are naively claiming commercial agreements make Anthropic right, as if contracts had more weight than the constitution.

I would rather call out a "virtuous signalling" entity in the valley simply standing for something aligned with civil liberties, and using it as a political stance in what nobody would deny is an unfortunate polarized political climate.

What to make of OpenAI then. Should I give my opinion that they took a falsely constitutional stance, or simply made for-profit move to land a juicy government contract, while making the public think they kept the same red lines as their main competitor?

Or just stick to the fact: The DoD will, as always, get away with its liberticide demands to get what it wants, because other big tech will fall inline.

[antonvs]

What's your definition of "patriotism" and why do private companies need to be "patriotic"? How do you reconcile this with the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and so on?

The US isn't Iran, North Korea, or even China, as much as some people, including the US president, seem want to emulate those models.

[stackghost]

>The national industry is supposed to submit to the military's wishes to the extent that they get compensated.

According to whom?

[zephen]

He's reading the room.

No, not this room. The one with Hegseth in it.

Look at his other comments. He's not wrong.

[lkbm]

No one cares if the Pentagon refuses to do business with Anthropic. But Hegseth has declared that effective immediately, no one else working with the DoD can either--which includes the companies hosting Anthropics models (Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet).

So it's six months to phase out use of Anthropic at the DoD, but the people hosting the models have to stop "immediately".

Which miiight impact the amount of inference the DoD would be able to get done in those six months.

[bjh13]

> So it's six months to phase out use of Anthropic at the DoD, but the people hosting the models have to stop "immediately".

> Which miiight impact the amount of inference the DoD would be able to get done in those six months.

Which might not be by accident looking at the Truth Social posts which state "Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow."

I would not be surprised to see this being used as an excuse to nationalize Anthropic.

[AnimalMuppet]

To attempt to nationalize Anthropic. I'm sure there would be court cases filed almost immediately, restraining orders, months of cases and then appeals and then appeals of the appeals.

[Sharlin]

I think you were downvoted due to your use of "patriotism" (specifically without scare quotes) because that word is usually used with an intended positive connotation. So the reader gets the impression that you think that submitting to the DoD’s wishes is how things ought to be.