← Back to context

Comment by hardbass

11 hours ago

Irrelevant. Then the government should just refrain from taking the contract, not use violent force to restrict Anthropic doing business.

12 comments

hardbass

Reply
ilikehurdles  11 hours ago

Correct, from the government's perspective, anthropic is a risk to the supply chain and should not be included in sensitive government contracts.

  • hardbass  11 hours ago

    Thats too vast a scope. Whats not to say they start enforcing bans on Anthropic in any branch or usage of Anthropic of your company if your company has entered into a defense contract with the government for something?

    • lukewarm707  11 hours ago

      they should ban it, defense contractors shouldn't be using it XD.

      fable 5.1 doesn't have any option to stop anthropic spying on it. you can't have that...anthropic contractors and actually the rationalist ea clowns themselves don't have security clearance

      2 replies →

lukewarm707  11 hours ago

i don't understand.

it is a supply chain risk, so they don't want it in the supply chain.

that's logical.

  • hardbass  11 hours ago

    They can just refuse to entertain contracts with them if they dislike it. Why issue a supply chain risk? Its clear and pure thuggery and blackmail.

    • petu  10 hours ago

      Devil's advocate, but Anthropic talks a lot about importance of alignment, so.. How can military ensure that model is NOT refusing to work just to be malicious?

      Anthropic doesn't provide model w/o guardrails, suppliers have to use public version, newer model releases surely know about Anthropic standoff with the military.. how to prevent model from realizing that it's doing something for the military (supplier) and sandbagging and/or subtly sabotaging the results?

      =====

      DOD recommends sandbagging as defense mechanism against destination "attacks":

      https://media.defense.gov/2026/Sep/08/2003992823/-1/-1/1/CSA...

      Page 13

        When suspecting a malicious distillation campaign, consider varying changes to responses across requests to complicate response quality evaluations, such that the subtle changes avoid triggering obvious alerts. Reducing reasoning depth, presenting correct information with different reasoning, or stylistic inconsistencies may evade detection while reducing training usefulness.

  Avoid informing China-based AI company users suspected of distillation campaigns of a switch to a downgraded model. Informing malicious distillers would enable them to improve their defense evasions and indicate when to roll back training.

      If that's seen as valid defense mechanism, then it's also a risk if used against them.

      1 reply →

    • lukewarm707  11 hours ago

      they issued the supply chain risk to get it out of the supply chain.

      they don't want suppliers to use it because it is a supply chain risk. specifically, the risk is that it is unreliable.

      the designation stops suppliers from using it.

      it stops it from being in the supply chain.

    • ilikehurdles  11 hours ago

      How is this a debate? Anthropic's AI was used in military/defense operations. When Anthropic discovered this and disclosed it publicly, they attempted to revoke access and went after the government demanding it not get used in such a way. This would be a supply chain risk to any government.

      If Lockheed Martin disabled weapons systems when it discovered the Air Force using its fighters over Iranian airspace based on Lockheed's ideological views, I'm pretty sure they would be labeled a supply chain risk at minimum. What is the issue here?

      1 reply →