Bought and paid for judge. Can't wait til this gets reversed and the ante gets upped.
amarant 1 minutes ago [-]
@dang I'm formally petitioning you to bring down the banhammer upon this obvious troll account
arrglk34t 26 seconds ago [-]
I'm formally asking you to suck my dick.
comrade1234 26 minutes ago [-]
I'm sure the contracts will start rolling in now.
0x3f 14 minutes ago [-]
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality.
If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
why_only_15 9 minutes ago [-]
The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https://calaveras.ai/ because we sell to AI companies who in turn sell to DoD).
SEJeff 3 minutes ago [-]
Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude and was what was used for the Venezuela operation and for targeting for the Iranian operation.
0x3f 8 minutes ago [-]
I understand that, but I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
why_only_15 4 minutes ago [-]
This is not really possible. My guess is that the government is not willing to spend the necessary quantity of money to get e.g. Amazon or Google to divest of Anthropic and stop providing them computing resources.
0x3f 3 minutes ago [-]
I believe Palantir are the only ones providing gov with Claude access
Ifkaluva 3 minutes ago [-]
No you don’t understand, they can’t accomplish the same by an informal policy.
Both Google and Amazon are government contractors. With the designation, they might have had to divest their positions in Anthropic and be unable to serve their models.
No informal rule accomplishes that.
SpicyLemonZest 6 minutes ago [-]
How would they implement such a policy? Amazon, Google, etc. aren't realistically going to terminate all business with Anthropic based on an informal policy that the DoD won't write down.
epolanski 10 minutes ago [-]
It's a strong signal that the government cannot strong arm privates.
simmerup 7 minutes ago [-]
Though of course that would require the government to respect the rule of law
mmoustafa 10 minutes ago [-]
The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.
0x3f 7 minutes ago [-]
Yes, but
> I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
mmoustafa 5 minutes ago [-]
Aaand that would get challenged in court, remember they had to get Congress to create this designation in the first place because it is not de-facto legal for the USG to discriminate between individuals or corporations.
paulpauper 18 minutes ago [-]
So much for all that alarmism a month ago. Just got to be patient and wait for cooler heads to prevail. Or it goes to show how Anthropic handled it well, by making their case as persuasively and assertively without delay as they had done.
jonplackett 16 minutes ago [-]
It’s all a big PR campaign. They will reveal shortly that they used Claude as their legal team.
SpicyLemonZest 16 minutes ago [-]
I completely disagree with the idea that a court not allowing the Secretary of Defense to bankrupt a company for disagreeing with him means it's wrong to be alarmed that he tried. It remains extraordinarily alarming that the guy who runs the US military thinks anyone who tries to stop him from doing what he'd like is a threat.
Waterluvian 6 minutes ago [-]
I think the verdict has been in for years now that there is nothing that Americans will mobilize against if it’s only the principles of freedom and liberty on the line. I think it will take being poked with a rather large stick to see some movement. Crippling the economy might be that stick. Unfortunately we all get to suffer their idiocracy.
JohnTHaller 30 minutes ago [-]
Some judicial pushback against authoritarian policies is good to see.
alexchapman 21 minutes ago [-]
Oh I agree.
alienbaby 9 minutes ago [-]
I'd wish more for an impartial, considered judgement
KronisLV 41 seconds ago [-]
> Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government
What issue do you take with that statement or the outcome here? I think Anthropic’s position on what the tech should not be used for was well reasoned, feels like the govt. flipped out based on their public messaging and this whole ordeal - instead of them themselves being more measured and just choosing not to use Anthropic’s services if they take an issue with it.
sgc 3 minutes ago [-]
Which of course would look exactly like judicial pushback against authoritarian policies.
bustah 7 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
arrglk34t 4 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
arrglk34t 5 minutes ago [-]
DEI activist bitch.
Fuck Anthropic.
Fuck San Francisco.
charcircuit 13 minutes ago [-]
What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?
0x3f 9 minutes ago [-]
Well, you could also say what's the point of laws when courts can interpret them however they like? There's never a neat answer in such multi-valent systems, is there?
mexicocitinluez 9 minutes ago [-]
What's the point of the Constitution when the government can ignore it at their discretion?
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/134/anthropic-...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/3252
If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
Both Google and Amazon are government contractors. With the designation, they might have had to divest their positions in Anthropic and be unable to serve their models.
No informal rule accomplishes that.
> I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
What issue do you take with that statement or the outcome here? I think Anthropic’s position on what the tech should not be used for was well reasoned, feels like the govt. flipped out based on their public messaging and this whole ordeal - instead of them themselves being more measured and just choosing not to use Anthropic’s services if they take an issue with it.
Fuck Anthropic.
Fuck San Francisco.