Comment by estearum
8 hours ago
You're misunderstanding.
The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this "weapon."
8 hours ago
You're misunderstanding.
The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this "weapon."
It's quite obvious they just wanted to punish Anthropic, all this supply chain risk is a joke.
Yes, but it's important that we point out their contradictions :)
Everyone knows that Whiskey Pete is an incompetent clown and his decisions will be reversed as needed.
> The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this
Technically, the Pentagon did. I don’t know if that’s legally binding on the NSA.
I work for a completely unrelated fed agency, who doesn’t use Anthropic products, and we all received the email stating we couldn’t use them period.
Huh, does supply-chain risk mean SecDef can bar a company from all federal contracting?
2 replies →
TFA says the NSA is part of the DOD.
It is, but NSA reports to the director of national intelligence, not the defense secretary, so it’s unclear (to me at least) that SecDef’s opinion of Anthropic counts for anything here
I guess DOD is large enough they have multiple parallel cabinet level positions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
2 replies →
Normal military procurement is going to go through process and use the APIs that Anthropic gives them. The NSA just has to has to achieve the goal of getting the weights out of the target computer.
This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't lie?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5g3z3xe65o
... as it has been designated as a supply chain risk.
You have causality backwards
USG signed a contract → USG wanted to coerce Anthropic into changing the terms post facto → USG decide to use supply chain risk designation to achieve this
We know this for a fact because they simultaneously floated using DPA or FASCSA to achieve their desired coercion.
[dead]