Hacker News Reader

Comment by Meekro | Hacker News Reader

I think you're right, this isn't about a specific request but about defense contractors not getting to draw moral red lines. Palmer Luckey's statement on X/Twitter reflects the same idea: https://x.com/PalmerLuckey/status/2027500334999081294

The thinking seems to be that you can't have every defense contractor coming in with their own, separate set of red lines that they can adjudicate themselves and enforce unilaterally. Imagine if every missile, ship, plane, gun, and defense software builder had their own set of moral red lines and their own remote kill switch for different parts of your defense infrastructure. Palmer would prefer that the President wield these powers through his Constitutional role as commander-in-chief.

View on HN

There's a hell of a difference between "we don't like your terms so we're going to use a different supplier" and "we don't like your terms, so we're going to use the power of the federal government to compel you to change them". The president is the commander-in-chief of the military, but Anthropic is not part of the military! Outside serving the public interest in a crisis, the president has no right to compel Anthropic to do anything. We are clearly not in a crisis, much less a crisis that demands kill bots and domestic surveillance. This is clear overreach, and claiming a constitutional justification is mockery.

I'd encourage you to look up the Defense Production Act. Its powers are probably broad enough that the President could unilaterally force Anthropic to do this whether or not it wants to. It's the same logic that would allow him to force an auto manufacturer to produce tanks. And the law doesn't care whether we are in a crisis or not. It's enough that he determine (on his own) that this action is "necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense."

However, it looks like Trump isn't going to go that route-- they're just going to add Anthropic to a no-buy list, and use a different AI provider.

We'll see where that goes.

Ok? And? Trump could use the DPA to force Ford to make tanks in a war, just like how Trump could use the DPA to force Anthropic to make AI in a war. Are we in a war? No. We are not in a crisis.

Of course a contractor could not decide to unilaterally shut off their missile system, because that would be a contract violation.

A contractor may try to negotiate that unilateral shut off ability with the government, and the government should refuse those terms based on democratic principles, as Luckey said.

But suppose the contractor doesn’t want to give up that power. Is it okay for the government to not only reject the contract, but go a step further and label the contractor as a “supply chain risk?” It’s not clear that this part is still about upholding democratic principles. The term “supply chain risk” seems to have a very specific legal meaning. The government may not have the legal authority to make a supply chain risk designation in this case.

It sounds like the "supply chain risk" designation is just about anyone who works with the DoD not using them, so their code doesn't accidentally make it into any final products through some sub-sub-subcontractor. Since they've made it clear that they don't want to be a defense contractor (and accept the moral problems that go with it), the DoD is just making sure they don't inadvertently become one.

That is not what is happening and its weird that people keep insisting that is all that is happening.

I think this is different. It’s a statement that this product is not qualified to perform that function(autonomous killing decisions). I think it is pure madness to think AI is currently up to this task. I also think it should be a war crime. I think congress should pass a law forbidding it.

There seem to be two separate lines of thought in this conversation: first, that the AI tech isn't smart enough for us to trust it with autonomously killing people. Second, even if it was smart enough, maybe such weapons are immoral to produce?

The first line of thought is probably true, but could change in the next 5 years-- so maybe we should be preparing for that?

The second line of thought is something for democracies to argue about. It's interesting that so many people in this thread want to take this power away from democratic governments, and give it to a handful of billionaire tech executives.

What democratic government are we talking about? Surely you don't mean the U.S. We do not live in a democracy right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com