Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…
-
The Pentagon's demand is that Anthropic agree to "all lawful use" without the company imposing its own additional restrictions.
That does not depend on Anthropic setting fire to its ethics branding.
@Horace said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
The Pentagon's demand is that Anthropic agree to "all lawful use" without the company imposing its own additional restrictions.
So they are insisting that they provide the capability? You explicitly said otherwise a few posts back.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
-
@Horace said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
The Pentagon's demand is that Anthropic agree to "all lawful use" without the company imposing its own additional restrictions.
So they are insisting that they provide the capability? You explicitly said otherwise a few posts back.
@jon-nyc said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
@Horace said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
The Pentagon's demand is that Anthropic agree to "all lawful use" without the company imposing its own additional restrictions.
So they are insisting that they provide the capability? You explicitly said otherwise a few posts back.
Any piece of technology can be used illegally. They are insisting that imperfect guardrails not be imposed on them. That is not the same as an insistence that they are provided with the ability to do illegal things. The AI will provide them with the ability to do illegal things with or without the imperfect guardrails. But what they have not done, is to insist on an ability to break the law. If it were possible for the AI to know what the law is exactly, which of course it isn't, as the law in question is unsettled, then in theory the pentagon would agree to the guardrails. But that thought experiment depends on an impossible universe.
-
So they’re not insisting that the company provide the capability, they’re insisting that they not NOT provide the capability.
Ok glad we’ve cleared that up.
Shame on me for the tortured framing.
@jon-nyc said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
So they’re not insisting that the company provide the capability, they’re insisting that they not NOT provide it.
Ok glad we’ve cleared that up.
Shame on me for the tortured framing.
It's incoherent to say that the difference between the version of AI anthropic would like to provide, and the version the DoD wants, is that one has the ability to be used illegally and the other does not. No such categorical separation exists. The DoD is insisting on the absence of imperfect guardrails, literally. That is not the same as "insisting on the ability to break the law". If all they wanted was the ability, they could use the version Anthropic suggests. They are insisting that Anthropic not be in the loop regarding whether something is legal or illegal. They have pledged to follow law, such as it is.
-
Ok, so let’s leave the legality to the future lawyers since it depends on actual use.
For tomorrow’s deadline, they’re insisting that Anthropic NOT NOT provide a certain capability. Which is different than insisting they DO provide that same capability. In fact, the latter is dishonest tribal rhetoric.
Ok, I’m learning. Don’t give up on me yet.
-
No, you're not really learning. But I'm patient. You may not have understood my previous post; feel free to read it again. The difference in versions that Anthropic wants to provide and that DoD wants them to provide, is not one of categorical "can or cannot be used for illegal surveillance". This is an important point. The DoD only wants imperfect guardrails removed.
It is simply and objectively false to think that the version Anthropic would like to provide, will perfectly prevent itself from use in "illegal" surveillance while allowing itself to be used in legal circumstances. The DoD is demanding that the imperfect guardrails not be a potential impediment to their legal uses. Explicitly that is their demand. Yes, your framing is tribal and tortured.
-
Didn't we have a Claude member here once? Maybe he can weigh in. If not, @klaus is as close as we get.
@89th said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
Didn't we have a Claude member here once? Maybe he can weigh in. If not, @klaus is as close as we get.
That’s going back awhile. Yeah, I think his complete handle was Claude Balls.
I just assumed it another one of the late Larry’s numerous fun sock puppets
-
@89th said in Hegseth to Anthropic: Nice company you got there…:
cause Xai is Gai
And Gai means "chicken."
https://www.gainyc.com/
-
Don't think there is a meaningful distinction between different "versions" of a large AI model. It costs way too much for a company to perform parallel trainings to develop two significantly different "versions."
If the underlying AI model is the same, then putting different "guardrails" around the model gives little confidence that a tech savvy user (like the Pentagon) won't have the capability to get around those guardrails.
It sounds to me Anthropic wants the Pentagon to promise (as a matter of contract) not to use its product for certain purposes, rather than trying to not provide a certain "version" of its product.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/26/hegseth-anthropic-ai-model-claude/
Hegseth wants Anthropic to modify its contract to allow “any lawful use” of the technology. Anthropic is willing to rewrite its current terms of use but not to include mass surveillance of Americans or accommodate weapons that operate without a person in the loop to make the final decision.
It seems WaPo's Editorial Board reads the situation as I do: it's a contractual "terms of use" issue, not a "product version" issue.
-
-
OpenAI is in negotiations with the DoD to take over for Anthropic. I hope the "supply chain risk" threat is just negotiation hot air. I suspect it will prove to be, but who knows.
In the letter, Anthropic acknowledges that the law is currently ambiguous to non-existent. Their concerns are ethical rather than (currently) legal, and I think the DoD is well within its duties to find a vendor who will not impose their own ethical constraints.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login