Comment by bawolff
1 day ago
Isn't it a literal supply chain risk, though?
They want their products to not be used for some purposes. That's fine, that is their right. But that doesn't just stop at direct purchases. If the US buys from a defense contractor who bought from abthropic, that really isn't that different from buying direct. The moral hazard is still there and the risk that anthropic will try to prevent their product from being used in that fashion is still there.
I think anthropic wants their cake and to eat it too. You can't take a principled stand against something and then be shocked the thing you are taking a principled stand against might think you are a risk.
> I think anthropic wants their cake and to eat it too. You can't take a principled stand against something and then be shocked the thing you are taking a principled stand against might think you are a risk.
Is it a principled stand or not? In your first comment, you said 'anthropic's "moral" stances are bullshit', their actions here are merely (or at least primarily) a successful marketing exercise, and the result is "a win for both sides". Are you now acknowledging that it's a costly, risky action on Anthropic's part? Because you haven't said anything to refute that; you've just changed the subject.
> Is it a principled stand or not
I believe that anthropic is trying to frame it that way. My point is that if you accept their framing then this whole thing falls apart. That is true regardless of if its actually principled or not.
> Are you now acknowledging that it's a costly, risky action on Anthropic's part?
I'll acknowledge its a risky strategy. Whether its costly depends on the result of that risk.
> If the US buys from a defense contractor who bought from abthropic, that really isn't that different from buying direct. The moral hazard is still there and the risk that anthropic will try to prevent their product from being used in that fashion is still there.
You need to look closer at how the government is trying to use the 'supply chain risk' designation. Hegseth said this:
> Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.
It remains to be seen whether they'll actually be able to enforce this. But it clearly goes far beyond what would be justified by the kind of supply chain risk you are describing.
>You need to look closer at how the government is trying to use the 'supply chain risk' designation. Hegseth said this:
>> Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.
If Anthropic is really serious about their moral stances they could themselves refuse to sell indirectly to us military. Militarirs are ultimately about killing people. So yes, if the supply chain risk is that anthropic might suddenly pull out of military projects and leave people depending on them high and dry, this seems like an appropriate response.
> So yes, if the supply chain risk is that anthropic might suddenly pull out of military projects and leave people depending on them high and dry, this seems like an appropriate response.
But it is so much broader than that! He's saying that if any part of a company does any business with the US military, said company cannot do any business with Anthropic. How could that possibly be necessary to avoid the risk "that anthropic might suddenly pull out of military projects"?