[jjcm]

This is the strongest statement in the post:

> They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a “supply chain risk”—a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company—and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal. These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.

This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use. I really like Anthropic's approach here, which is to in turn state that they're happy to help the Governemnt move off of Anthropic. It's a messaging ploy for sure, but it puts the ball in the current administration's court.

[panarky]

Does the Defense Production Act force employees to continue working at Anthropic?

[nerdsniper]

No. It really only binds the corporation, but it does hold the executives/directors personally responsible for compliance so they’d be under a lot of pressure to figure out how to fix enough leaks in the ship to keep it afloat. Any individual director/executive could quit with little issue, but if they all did in a way that compromised the corporations ability to function, the courts could potentially utilize injunctions/fines/jail time to compel compliance from corporate leaders.

Also there’s probably a way to abuse the Taft-Hawley act beyond current recognition to force the employees to stay by designating any en-masse quitting to be a “strike / walk off / collective action”. The consequences to the individuals for this is unclear - the act really focuses on punishing the union rather than the employees. It would take some very creative maneuvering to do anything beyond denying unemployment benefits and telling the other big AI companies (Google / ChatGPT / xAI) to blacklist them. And probably using any semi-relevant three letter agency to make them regret their choice and deliver a chilling effect to anyone else thinking of leaving (FBI, DHS, IRS, SEC all come to mind).

If the administration could figure out how to nationalize the company (like replace the leadership with ideologically-aligned directors who sell it to the government) then any now-federal-employees declared to be quitting as part of a collective action could be fined $1,000 per day or incarcerated for up to one year.

It’s worth noting that this thesis would get an F grade at any accredited law school. Forcing people to work is a violation of the 13th amendment. But interpretations of the constitution and federal law are very dynamic these days so who knows.

[SilverElfin]

[flagged]

[JumpCrisscross]

> this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use

It’s a flippant move by Hegseth. I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this. I doubt Trump is more than cursorily aware. Maybe Miller got in the idiot’s ear, who knows.

[altacc]

Trump/Miller/whomever don't need to be actively involved in every decision. They have defined an approach to strong arm problem solving and weaponisation of the government that anyone that works for them is implicitly allowed to use. The supposed controls that were meant to prevent this have crumbled or aligned.

[Quarrelsome]

flippant? Its aggressive, belligerent and entitled. I'm not seeing "flippant". Unless this is some sort of weasely "oh we only threatened them a bit" bullshit. This is about entitled pricks in government who consider their temporary democratic mandate as a carte blanche for absolutism.

[cmrdporcupine]

It definitely has the aroma of either Bannon or Miller or both.

[xpe]

> It’s a flippant move by Hegseth.

Care to convert this into a prediction?: are you predicting Hegseth will back down?

> I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this.

... what does this mean to you? What comes next? As SecDef/SecWar, Hegseth is the head of the Pentagon. He's pushing for this. Something like 2+ million people are under his authority. Do you think they will push back? Stonewall?

One can view Hegseth as unqualified, even a walking publicity stunt while also taking his power seriously.

[mandeepj]

First of all, there's no such thing as "Department of War". A department name change is legal/binding only after it's approved by the Senate. Senator Kelly is still calling it DoD (Department of Defense).

> Mass domestic surveillance.

Since when has DoD started getting involved with the internal affairs of the country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...

[_kst_]

The Senate??

Any law changing the name of the Defense Department would have to be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (or by 2/3 of both Houses overriding a Presidential veto). The Senate has no such authority on its own.

[Lerc]

It's whatever what the people who have the power want to call it. What is written on a piece of paper is irrelevant if it is not acted upon.

If the rename gets struck down then they don't have the power. If it doesn't they have the power.

There are many dictatorships that built their power in the face of people claiming that they can't do what they planned because it was illegal.

Until they did it anyway.

[Quarrelsome]

I'd imagine the pentagon are more interested in the autonomous kill bot part than the surveillance part.

[khazhoux]

Well, Trump renamed it, and since Congress is now a subsidiary of the Executive Branch, it's the Department of War.

[culi]

They've already spent millions on the name change. It's also the original name of the department. IMO it's a more honest name

[tokyobreakfast]

www.defense.gov redirects to www.war.gov but I like how you refer to Wikipedia as the authoritative source to prove this functionally irrelevant and aggressive Reddit-style seething.

The talk page on the linked Wikipedia article arguing about logos is just as deranged. It's very important to realize there is literally nothing you—or anyone else—can do about this.

[egorfine]

> two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.

They are only contradictory if you think about it.

[ithkuil]

Nothing is contradictory if you don't think

[calvinmorrison]

More like the government is treating this like the near term weapon it actually is and, unlike the Manhattan project, the government seems to have little to no control.

[fwipsy]

Anthropic has been pushing for commonsense AI regulation. Our current administration has refused to regulate AI and attempted to prevent state regulation.

"The government doesn't have control of this technology" is an odd way to think about "the government can't force a company to apply this technology dangerously."

[toomuchtodo]

Note that they always attempt to exert control they don’t have. They’re always bluffing, and they keep losing. Respond accordingly.

[gclawes]

> This contradictory messaging puts to rest any doubt that this is a strong arm by the governemnt to allow any use.

Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

[theptip]

Every company is free to determine its terms of use. If USG doesn’t like them they should sign a contract with someone else.

[randerson]

Because technology companies know more about their product's capabilities and limitations than a former Fox News host? And because they know there's a risk of mass civilian casualties if you put an LLM in control of the world's most expensive military equipment?

[Hnrobert42]

Because the government is here to serve us. Not the other way around.

[singleshot_]

Same reason they cant quarter troops in your house: the law

[bathtub365]

There are a couple of notable Supreme Court cases in this area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

[throw0101c]

> Why the hell should companies get to dictate on their own to the government how their product is used?

Well:

"""

Imagine that you created an LLC, and that you are the sole owner and employee.

One day your LLC receives a letter from the government that says, "here is a contract to go mine heavy rare earth elements in Alaska." You don't want to do that, so you reply, "no thanks!"

There is no retaliation. Everything is fine. You declined the terms of a contract. You live in a civilized capitalist republic. We figured this stuff out centuries ago, and today we have bigger fish to fry.

"""

* https://x.com/deanwball/status/2027143691241197638

[quietbritishjim]

Those aren't contradictory at all. If I need a particular type of bolt for my fighter jet but I can only get it from a dodgy Chinese company, then that bolt is a supply chain risk (because they could introduce deliberate defects or simply stop producing it) and also clearly important to national security. In fact, it's a supply chain risk because is important to national security.

[NewsaHackO]

No, in your example, if the dodgy Chinese company is a supply chain risk due to sabotage, why would they invoke an act to force production of the bolts from the same company for use for national defense preparedness, which would be clearly a national security risk?

[estearum]

It's easy to resolve an alleged contradiction by just ignoring one half of it lol

Try introducing DPA invocation into your analogy and let's see where it goes!

[gipp]

"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.

[ray_v]

The analogy doesn't work here ... In your scenario they are ok with using the bolt as long as the Chinese company promises to remove deliberate defects - which is of course absurd ... AND contradictory.