← Back to context

Comment by timr

1 day ago

[flagged]

It stop any one with government contracts from using anthropic. Not just bidding on government contracts.

  • [flagged]

    • No. It is much more than this.

      If I sell red widgets that I make by hand to the government, I won't be allowed to use Anthropic to help me write my web-site.

      4 replies →

    • But Anthropic can't be a winning bidder, can they? They're specifically saying they won't offer certain services that the US Gov wants. Therefore they de facto fail any bid that requires them to offer those services. (And from Anthropic's side, it sounds like they're also refusing to bid for those contracts.)

      Is that not sufficient here?

No domestic company has ever before been declared a supply chain risk. If this is the normal way of excluding a supplier from a bidding, are you saying the DoD has never before excluded a domestic supplier from a bidding?

  • That’s because no company who has ever sold weapons to the government has ever been brazen enough to tell the government how they can and cannot use their purchase. It’s unprecedented because most companies that sell to the government are publicly traded and have a board that would never let this happen. It’s unprecedented because Anthropic is behaving like a reckless startup.

    That’s what they will argue, anyway.

    • This is just factually incorrect.

      To begin with, the existing contract included the language on usage.

      Other companies also have such language about usage. It's fairly standard, and is little more than licensing terms.

      The idea this is unprecedented is some PR talking point nonsense.

      1 reply →

That is misinformation. It would be essentially a death sentence for a company like Anthropic, which is targeting enterprise business development. No one who wants to work with the US government would be able to have Claude on their critical path.

> (b) Prohibition. (1) Unless an applicable waiver has been issued by the issuing official, Contractors shall not provide or use as part of the performance of the contract any covered article, or any products or services produced or provided by a source, if the covered article or the source is prohibited by an applicable FASCSA orders as follows:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.204-30

  • > That is misinformation. It would be essentially a death sentence for a company like Anthropic, which is targeting enterprise business development.

    "Misinformation" does not mean "facts I don't like".

    > No one who wants to work with the US government would be able to have Claude on their critical path.

    Yes. That is what the rule means. Or at least "the department of war". It's not clear to me that this applies to the whole government.

    • What an absurd stance. So this is okay because the arbitrary rule they applied to retaliate says so?

      Again, they could have just chosen another vendor for their two projects of mass spying on American citizens and building LLM-powered autonomous killer robots. But instead, they actively went to torch the town and salt the earth, so nothing else may grow.

      2 replies →

    • So other parts of the government are allowed to work with companies that have been determined to be "supply chain risks"? That sounds unlikely.

So tell us all the other similar times this has been done. Why are you so invested in some drunk and a his mob family being right?