Hacker News Reader

Comment by beerandt | Hacker News Reader

If you're preventing the military from doing some action because you disagree with it, that makes you an adversary.

Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies.

> If you're preventing the military from doing some action because you disagree with it, that makes you an adversary.

No, it doesn't. The military doesn't have a right to force product requirements and terms of use on companies they contract with.

If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company. Trying to get them designated a supply-chain risk is just political retribution.

>If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company.

How is that not what they're saying here by banning it in the supply chain?

How else do you prevent any dod purchases or contracts from 'having contact' with a software you don't trust?

To be credible, you need to address the point that this prevents subcontractors from using it to code.

Why has this never previously been done to an American company from which the DoD decided not to purchase something?

> Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies.

But they're not actively handicapping it. They're saying it would be wildly irresponsible to assume it's "otherwise capable".

And very critically: they have taken zero steps to "actively handicap" it in any way.

Wanting veto power in execution is functionally the same as actively handicapping it, regardless of how implemented.

The Claude they sell to me seems quite actively handicapped when I ask it questions about cyber security or biology.

am I insane with all these people making the actively handicapping argument? Doesn't openAI sell to them the actively handicapped version?

Like they're okay with the product being designed to be incapable but not terms limiting a product.

Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies. If you discover that the military is using your capacitors to make rocket launchers, so you introduce a manufacturing defect that will cause them to fail at high heat, you're a supply chain risk and can be rightfully designated as such.

The converse does not qualify. If I advertise a chemical with an admixture that prevents it from being used to make explosives, the military has absolutely no right to demand that I produce a version of that chemical without the admixture. Selling a product which can't do what the DoD wants does not make me a supply chain risk, no matter how easy it would be for me to make a different product that's fit for their purpose.

So... don't buy from Anthropic? How many of the US population is an adversary, according to your definition?

Say everyone had something to sell and DOD wanted to buy it. But some people wouldn't make the product changes DOD demanded. Now, they are the adversary of the DOD?

I hear Trumplandia is nice this time of year.

The point is the DoD is telling its suppliers not to use it because the supplier of your supplier is your supplier. That’s what this does

There must be precedent if this is so normal.

The DOD keeps extreme control over their supply chain. For many things it requires specific approval to be in the supply chain in the first place

How many suppliers have they designated a supply chain risk?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com