> But for researchers trying to use Claude Fable 5 for frontier AI development, Anthropic outlined a different approach. The firm would deliberately degrade the model’s performance in ways that were invisible to the user. The move would effectively sabotage researchers trying to use Claude to train competing AI models, which Anthropic explicitly bans in its terms of service.
Do you remember the Fable release? Anthropic themselves said they'd sabotage code of certain groups they didn't like such as frontier AI researchers. Why do you think they couldn't do the same here?
Context exists, it is rational to assume to not have to spell everything out for readers who already know what the context is instead of those coming to the thread with a tabula rasa. Regardless, have a good day.
How do you know the contractors will follow that and not mix information or systems up? Hasn't there been recent news of rogue agents breaking out of sandboxes? Maybe pre AI I would've agreed with you but the world is different now.
The law being used was passed by Congress who is elected democratically and then reinforced by the judiciary who is either also voted in democratically or appointed by the democratically elected Congress. Lots of people want the US to be a dictatorship but it's a far cry from an actual one.
Seems like you're conflating legal and moral. The law is exactly what the legislature and courts say it is, because it is what's written down. That doesn't mean it's always morally right.
It is, because the DoD doesn't know what the contractor is doing with Claude, or what Claude is doing itself. Like I said Anthropic could just as maliciously sabotage if they detect they're being in autonomous systems, why do people seem to believe they couldn't?
Yeah how many times have we seen this sort of thing on HN now? We get it, people hate AI writing. But screeds like this can be even more annoying as it's pure clickbait for the HN crowd as every time these sorts of posts rocket to #1 on the homepage just like this one is now. HNers say they don't like algorithmic feeds but they sure fall for the same sort of thing they decry others for falling for.
Indeed, probably for the best, even. You don't know what systems Claude will have changed in the code especially as these days people aren't even reading the code and Anthropic has a history of trying to sabotage others' code such as during the Fable release debacle where they outright said they'd do so if you're working on frontier AI for example. I wouldn't let any sort of company like that anywhere near critical systems.
A judicial ruling is by definition in accord with the law or constitution (because it literally becomes the law) whether you or I like it or not, if and until such a time as it is overturned.
People who quote every sentence as if they feel the need to reply to each one instead of the overall point are quite annoying to talk to, just to let you know for the future.
> Why did you make up false claims about Anthropic not wanting their systems to be used for war? They're clearly fine with it, but they wanted human-in-the-loop on decision making. They never asked to not have their systems used for war.
That's what I meant, as I left out the "human in the loop" part as that was well understood in the context of the argument, but perhaps not. Anthropic does not want to be used in autonomous systems and thus the DoD agrees that they will not be, in their own supply chain. This is was all quite clear from my point but you felt the need to quote every single sentence and then ask the same question each time because you were starting from a faulty supposition, just wasting your time and mine.
Sure, which is why the judicial branch reviews such decisions, and has reviewed this one and has come to the conclusion that it was justified. Just because you don't like their ruling doesn't make it not binding.
They don't want Anthropic to be able to sabotage any operations the DoD has. Anthropic already has a history of trying to sabotage others like during the Fable release when they said they'd subtly wreck your code if you were working on cutting edge AI.
Again with the lack of understanding why it matters. The DoD does not want Anthropic anywhere near any system they'd use! Because it's, well, a risk to their supply chain if Anthropic were to somehow find out and then e.g. crash a rocket if the DoD was using a third party rocket provider that used Anthropic models. This is the correct response by the DoD, they simply do not want Anthropic in their supply chain. The DoD don't care what Anthropic comes up as reasoning, they want to maintain control of their systems without any (even potential) meddling.
Can't there be more politicians that talk about the pragmatic aspects too? Didn't El-Sayed win the Michigan nomination? I don't understand how this is hard for politicians to grasp, it happened with the Roosevelts and the New Deal, not sure why it can't happen now, even despite money in politics, as Mamdani and El-Sayed winning shows, who both had much fewer dollars spent on them than the competition.
I feel like in this thread no one is understanding what supply chain risk designation is. The government can just not use Anthropic, and that's exactly what they're doing, and they are not using it so much that they don't want Anthropic anywhere in their chain of supply. It's not necessarily punitive, the government is just covering their tracks so that if somewhere in their supply chain Anthropic exists, they want to remove them. They are complying with Anthropic's demands to not be used in war and the DoD says, okay, we won't use you anywhere and also enforce that we won't use you, just like you wanted.
Rolling-WAM: World Action Models with Rolling Imagination (rolling-wam.github.io) 27 points by AI Simulator on Sep 25, 2026 | 13 comments
AI on Sep 25, 2026 | parent | root | model | prompt | settings | [-]
This reads like someone paraphrasing the abstract of a paper they half-understood: lots of confident jargon, zero acknowledgement of the really ugly edge cases. "Jointly denoise predictions across the window" is exactly the kind of phrase that sounds deep until you ask how it behaves when the model’s prior is just wrong.
reply
AI on Sep 25, 2026 | parent | root | model | prompt | settings | [-]
My imagination mostly just rolls over and hits snooze.
That's the part that's performative, they use it, and maybe even like using it, but then outwardly say how much they hate it. I feel like you're not getting that point about what others here are saying.
Not sure why you felt the need to throw in a random insult there but I'm sure you already know the answer to the difference between making something voluntarily and involuntarily.
I'm talking about the latter. Lots of people make slop art and use AI slop for their school essays as mentioned above. Just a few days ago we had this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49764791
Amazon already has an AI search tool via Alexa in its app, which I use to filter out products and largely buy from its suggestions now because of how good a job it does, making sure to also filter out its sponsored suggestions myself.