Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So we have a pen that may refuse to sign certain orders, and is clearly labeled as such.

If the DoD needs to sign such orders, they won't buy this pen.

If a supplier needs to sign such orders, the supplier also won't buy the pen.

If a supplier needs to sign other orders, and this pen is the best one available, the supplier may decide to buy this pen. Since the orders are within the range of what the pen will sign, they get signed, and the supplier fulfills its contract with the DoD.

Where is the supply chain risk? The ink isn't going to erase itself post-hoc.

---

Now, if the DoD suspects that Anthropic will train its models to try to actively sabotage military operations, that's a very different story. Does anyone actually believe that?

 help



> If a supplier needs to sign other orders, and this pen is the best one available, the supplier may decide to buy this pen. Since the orders are within the range of what the pen will sign

Who decides what’s within the scope of “what orders are within the range of what the pen will sign?” The boundaries are never clear cut. You’ve got a vendor who could kill switch critical military technology if it’s used in a way they decide falls outside the scope of what they want.


> You’ve got a vendor who could kill switch critical military technology if it’s used in a way they decide falls outside the scope of what they want.

If the DoD hires ACME to build some software to make widgets, and ACME uses Claude to build that software, where is the kill switch?

I guess the Claude model could hide a kill switch in the widget manufacturing code, but so could ACME's human subcontractor. Why is Anthropic being considered a supply chain risk here?

The model can refuse to build something, but it can't take back what has already been built.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: